Jump to content


OS X, G5 and Gaming.....questions from a PC gamer! ;-)


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#41 elfer

elfer

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 10 March 2004 - 12:13 PM

There are actually some differences between PRO and Home. Most notably, PRO is built for a networked, corporate environment so it allows you to attach and log into a Active Directory domain, from what I know...


elfer

#42 Quacker

Quacker

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Location:NYC

Posted 10 March 2004 - 04:43 PM

Quote

There are a few people here who have gaming PCs to go with their Mac, here is a link to a site that shows you how to build a cheap PC.

Great Idea.  You can buy a mac and if it doesn't fit your gamming needs you can build your self or buy your self a cheep computer. I recomend build because then it is really easy to upgrade it.  It can be a work in progress plus it woun't cost you over 1000 dollars to get a really fast comp.  I always give tech tv links so y not another one.  They made a computer for under 500 dollars you can get the specs and parts here:http://www.techtv.co...3598882,00.html  

Another great website for really cheep PC parts is:http://www.pricewatch.com

#43 Dually-G5

Dually-G5

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts
  • Location:Inside a Unix Shell

Posted 17 March 2004 - 07:16 PM

I have a Dual 2 Ghz G5 , 2 Gigs of RAM, a Radeon 9800 Pro, and a 23" HD display.

For the record the only "real" game I've tried is the UT2K4 demo. With everything maxed out and in 1920x1200 widescreen this game runs smooth as a baby's ass, looks gorgeous, and I average anywhere from 80-100 FPS depending on the map and number of firefights going on. Sometimes even more.

I would say if you can afford it....go for it...you won't be disappointed. I thought I was done with gaming but this one has changed my mind completely.

#44 Greg Grant

Greg Grant

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2526 posts

Posted 19 March 2004 - 06:59 PM

I tried doing the gaming PC bit but I found I prefered to spend my money on maintaining my Mac rather than spending on my PC seeing as I used my Mac roughly 95% of the time and that I really don't play enough games to even justify a PC let alone the three consoles in my living room. I discovered how little I cared about my PC when I bought a monitor for it and stuck it on my Mac as my second display. Maintaining a Mac and a PC would have stretched my funds to thin to buy a new Mac so I canned the PC long ago in hopes of buying a new Mac. Sadly I never commited to saving for a Mac until a few short months ago and now I'm in the market for breaking $3g on a G5 next month. :)

My point being unless you're DEAD BENT on gaming, you might as well invest in one platform weather it be a PC or a Mac because you can only really fully use a single computer at once.
the IMG audio guy...

#45 Lt.Page

Lt.Page

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 666 posts
  • Location:NorCal

Posted 21 March 2004 - 03:07 PM

ive got a pc for gaming along with my macs, to let you know im pretty unbiased.

yes, the g5 will give you a silky-smooth gaming experience.  but theres the price to consider.  for about a thousand, you could build a 64-bit system thats as good (in gaming) as that 3000$ g5.  thats just the way it is.  on the other hand, i love mac games.  gameranger contributes to this incredible sense of community that you just do not get on the pc, unless youre playing a blizzard game on battle.net.  doom 3 specifically is being released very close to the pc version.  in the future, thanks to the awesome porting companies like aspyr, almost all of the big games will probably be ported in a timely fashion.  again, to caution you: the mac will be about 2-3x the price for about the same performance.  it will be more than that if you want to upgrade.  with macs, its usually more cost effective to get a new machine than to swap out the processor.
ok.  my opinion is, get the mac.  you will not regret it.  (by the way, wait until the next revision of the g5 comes out, you wont have to wait that long)  also, if youre not that computer savvy and arent comfortable building your own, then theres no reason not to switch.  buying from companies like dell or even alienware just erases the price advantage.
Do; or Do Not.  There is no try.
Pat yourself on the back if you know who Lt.Page is.

#46 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 26 March 2004 - 12:48 PM

Quote

my opinion is, get the mac.  you will not regret it.

On the other hand

#47 gorilla

gorilla

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1109 posts
  • Location:Your urinal tract.

Posted 26 March 2004 - 01:47 PM

Quote

Quote

my opinion is, get the mac.  you will not regret it.

On the other hand
Bobittybobbob, do you even own a Mac?  For some reason I get the feeling that you're the only one here who lacks an actual computer from Apple since you come off as a total PC advocate.

Getting a Mac for the sole purpose of gaming requires one of two things - patience or an alternate means of gaming.  However, in my opinion, I'd never switch back to a PC as my main home computer, unless Apple takes a horrible dive for some reason.  I like playing games on my Mac, but since I own a few consoles, I don't need it as my sole gaming device.  I hardly stand using my PC at work.  My 3 year old mac still runs better than my 1 year old work PC.

If you're looking to get a Mac, know that you'll potentially have to wait for games, but beyond that Apple's overall quality is lightyears ahead of anything a PC can offer.  This is coming from a guy who uses a PC more than he does his Mac.

#48 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 26 March 2004 - 02:42 PM

Quote

do you even own a Mac?
I use my mom's discarded Macs. I've had her leftover SE,  Quadra, and Performa, and I've often used her current iBook and iMac. Even the Quadra (Apple's old high-end line) don't really compete with contemporary gaming PCs, and the rest are far worse.

Quote

Apple's overall quality is lightyears ahead of anything a PC can offer

I don't think that's true, because Apple's proprietary parts (motherboard, case) have betters or equals in the PC market, and the other parts are  from the PC market anyway.

The only thing OSX's got going for it is UI, but I think Windows is good enough for gaming, and OS9 did it better/simpler than both. Popping a Morphix CD in to play Enemy Territory, I see Linux, Xfree86, and IceWM do a good enough job, too.

They've taken FreeBSD's userland and the Mach kernel, and added in CoreAudio, AGL, and Quartz. Everything but Quartz is better/faster than OS9 was, but PC's have accelerated surround sound, faster display managers/window managers, and newer versions of OpenGL.

#49 elfer

elfer

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 26 March 2004 - 02:50 PM

OS X is still a relatively "new" OS. Apple deserves kudos for doing this. Windows has been around for many more year, at least considering that they have built on Windows 3.0 and not made a clear cut and started with something "totally new". So from that standpoint, OS X is pretty darn great....don't you think?


elfer

#50 gorilla

gorilla

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1109 posts
  • Location:Your urinal tract.

Posted 26 March 2004 - 03:11 PM

Quote

Everything from ancient Macs to techno mumbo-jumbo.
The only thing Mac OSX has going for it is that it doesn't piss me off.  Today, on my PC (A Compaq Evo, 2.4 Ghz Pentium 4 with ~500 mb ram running Windows XP) it has crashed twice.  Illustrator and Photoshop both became unstable and unusable at various times today.  My CD drive ceased responding and nearly ate one of my archive CDs.

When I mean overall quality, I mean OVERALL, not just gaming or from your anal technical aspect.  My G4 tower at home has been running for about two months now non-stop (with one restart for upgrading software) and I haven't had any trouble with it whatsoever.  Photoshop never stalled or crashed, my CD rom never stopped responding, my network never dissappeared.

#51 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 26 March 2004 - 03:47 PM

Quote

I mean overall quality

You could have chosen quality parts for your PC, too.

#52 gorilla

gorilla

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1109 posts
  • Location:Your urinal tract.

Posted 26 March 2004 - 04:02 PM

Quote

Quote

I mean overall quality

You could have chosen quality parts for your PC, too.

Well, I don't pick the parts for my machine.  Compaq does (or HP, whoever makes those decisions).  And since it's a "professionally" built machine, it should run better than the run-of-the-mill clunker.  It's not like I've got a hampster running in the damn case.

And even my home PC failed me.  I used "quality" parts for that one as well, including an ASUS motherboard, an Athlon Thunderbird, tons of fans, a Maxtor harddrive (which now resides in my Mac), a good power source and a good Voodoo videocard.  And that bastard didn't perform well either, the processor even burned up on me when it had a huge heat sink/fan combo and that mercury goop.  I've never used a PC I liked nearly as much as my Mac.

#53 Tetsuya

Tetsuya

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2178 posts
  • Location:MI

Posted 26 March 2004 - 04:14 PM

[quote name='"Lt.Page"for about a thousand' date=' you could build a 64-bit system thats as good (in gaming) as that 3000$ g5.  [/quote']

This is the only thing i have an issue with here... the cheapest ive seen an Athlon64 is about 550 dollars US, and you need a MoBo that can use the processor, and those arent too cheap - about 150 or 200 dollars there, and they need PC3200 Ram... also not cheap at the moment.  

Looking more along the lines of 1600 to 2000 dollars for that "nice" 64 bit system on the PC side, and if you  go totally high-end, more like 3000+.

that being said, you can still build an affordable PC that will perform (for games) as good as my Dual 2 G5, for less than 1000.. just not an Athlon 64 one.

#54 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 26 March 2004 - 04:36 PM

[quote]And even my home PC failed me]That's nice. Mine hasn't. I think I just picked higher-quality parts than you did.

[quote]ive seen an Athlon64 is about 550 dollars US, and you need a MoBo that can use the processor, and those arent too cheap[/quote]

[url="http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=1229151/search=athlon%252064/ut=184520417b1cf2de"]$280[/url] for a 3200+, and [url="http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=1247981/search=athlon%252064/ut=184520417b1cf2de"]$130[/url] for the motherboard. These were the first two I found.

[quote]they need PC3200 Ram[/quote]Correct me if I'm wrong, but they can use any form of DDR. My MSI motherboard supports DDR200, 266, 333, and 400.  

[quote]"nice" 64 bit system[/quote]

Why do you need 64 bit addressing? I doubt you have any games that use more than the 60 GB of RAM that a Pentium Pro can address.

#55 Tetsuya

Tetsuya

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2178 posts
  • Location:MI

Posted 26 March 2004 - 06:46 PM

having reading comprehension trouble again, Bobbob?

i said you could build a good PC for cheap, just not an Athlon 64 one.

please learn to read and if you are going to quote me, do it IN CONTEXT, as opposed to trying to bend and twist what i said to better suit what you want me to say.

#56 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 26 March 2004 - 07:00 PM

Quote

i said you could build a good PC for cheap, just not an Athlon 64 one.

The only reasons you gave for that were wrong, though.

#57 G-News

G-News

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 657 posts
  • Location:Bern, Switzerland

Posted 28 March 2004 - 04:11 AM

dont feed the trolls, folks

#58 Thain Esh Kelch

Thain Esh Kelch

    Admin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3823 posts
  • Steam ID:thaineshkelch
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 28 March 2004 - 05:25 AM

Quote

dont feed the trolls, folks
Not even the ones that roll onto their bags, so that you can pet their stomach. They always bite afterwards.

#59 twinky

twinky

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada

Posted 29 March 2004 - 01:45 AM

Quote

The only thing OSX's got going for it is UI, but I think Windows is good enough for gaming, and OS9 did it better/simpler than both.
You have got to be kidding me. I loved OS 9's UI, but despised its decrepit core. The only area in which OS 9 is better than OS X is UI consistency.

Quote

Why do you need 64 bit addressing? I doubt you have any games that use more than the 60 GB of RAM that a Pentium Pro can address.

Nobody needs 64-bit addressing, yet. Not in the desktop world that we normal folks play in.

That said, your bit about the PPro is a non-sequitur, and the correct number for the PPro is actually 64GB (2^36).

Besides which, the thing about the PPro was that only the physical address space was 36-bit, the virtual address space was still 32-bit – so no process, not even the OS, can actually use more than the 4GB limit of a regular 32-bit processor for itself. To take advantage of the 36-bit physical address space, you needed a large number of memory-hungry processes (e.g.,  64 processes that each need 1GB of memory).

______________________

With regard to Macs and gaming, I said my piece on Page 1. Macs are fine for casual gamers, i.e., if you're going to use the Mac for stuff other than gaming. They're roughly performance-equivalent; the only issue is the number of games available – plenty for the casual gamer, not enough for the hardcore gamer who wants to play through two or three new releases each week.

As far as price-performance parity, in the high end it's pretty much there, and that's what the original poster was asking about. The consumer machines are not gaming machines.

#60 Hrunga Zmuda

Hrunga Zmuda

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 39 posts
  • Location:Carlsbad, CA

Posted 29 March 2004 - 03:45 PM

Quote

Hi y'all...!

Well I am the happy user of a Powerbook, and I have downloaded and tried UT2004. IT's a bit sluggish and not as quick as I'd like, compared to my experience with PC gaming. Now, I face a dilemma and would like some input from this experienced crowd.

I have a dual 2GHz G5, Radeon Pro 9800 and 2.5 gigs of RAM. The UT 2004 demo screams on it. There is no compromise of performance, even when I'm running 10 or 15 other programs in the background.

I even like to put some hard rock on iTunes and listen to "Dude Looks Like a Lady" and "All the Small Things" and Led Zepplin while blasting away in Tourlan.  8)