Jump to content


What Mac Needs


  • Please log in to reply
192 replies to this topic

#181 Space_Pirate_Killer

Space_Pirate_Killer

    above n00b

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2270 posts
  • Location:Under a Crust.

Posted 25 April 2005 - 03:26 AM

Oh, no here we go again :(
Could we please get back on topic?


(10 pages!!)
The official Inside Mac Games forum Space Pirate Killer.

#182 SwervingVector

SwervingVector

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 25 April 2005 - 04:05 AM

Guys, I can see, and accept your points, I came back to have a look to see what happened, I saw that people were gang banging randy without *really* thinking about what he was trying to say. He was never saying that Macs are bad gaming machines or that they were bad machines overall, he was trying to express his opinion that Macs are no better than PCs or vice versa. It got all lost in the confuzzling mixup of emotional geek angst at perceived insults, from both sides... I think at one stage this debate was on topic... But yeah... Also, I'd appreciate it if you're going to call me immature and self-obsessed then you do it within the context of my argument. As you could do if I chose to point out your spelling errors... As it is, I didn't so you have no real right to start calling names. Poo poo head...

About what Macs need... Maybe a higher concentration of effort from Apple towards gaming to try to tap into that industry more efficiently? I dunno, maybe more third party companies interested in porting games with high optimisation as a part of their ethics? *shrug*

#183 WhiteSavage

WhiteSavage

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 319 posts
  • Location:I'll figure that out later :\

Posted 25 April 2005 - 07:59 AM

SwervingVector, on April 25th 2005, 03:05 AM, said:

Guys, I can see, and accept your points, I came back to have a look to see what happened, I saw that people were gang banging randy without *really* thinking about what he was trying to say. He was never saying that Macs are bad gaming machines or that they were bad machines overall, he was trying to express his opinion that Macs are no better than PCs or vice versa. It got all lost in the confuzzling mixup of emotional geek angst at perceived insults, from both sides... I think at one stage this debate was on topic... But yeah... Also, I'd appreciate it if you're going to call me immature and self-obsessed then you do it within the context of my argument. As you could do if I chose to point out your spelling errors... As it is, I didn't so you have no real right to start calling names. Poo poo head...

About what Macs need... Maybe a higher concentration of effort from Apple towards gaming to try to tap into that industry more efficiently? I dunno, maybe more third party companies interested in porting games with high optimisation as a part of their ethics? *shrug*

View Post


Maybe someone at apple actually interested in creating more Mac Gamers?

#184 SwervingVector

SwervingVector

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 26 April 2005 - 05:55 AM

lmao...

Pump them out on a factory line? I see what you mean though :P...

Maybe if you decided to bundle UT2k4 with every new Mac capable of running it at 15fps at least on default graphics...

#185 Space_Pirate_Killer

Space_Pirate_Killer

    above n00b

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2270 posts
  • Location:Under a Crust.

Posted 26 April 2005 - 06:15 AM

Every mac being sold at the moment can.
The official Inside Mac Games forum Space Pirate Killer.

#186 Maestro

Maestro

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Steam Name:kgmoome
  • Location:Boston

Posted 26 April 2005 - 09:47 AM

SwervingVector, on April 25th 2005, 10:05 AM, said:

Guys, I can see, and accept your points, I came back to have a look to see what happened, I saw that people were gang banging randy without *really* thinking about what he was trying to say.

View Post


At this point, I don't think anyone gives a flying fook what Randy is trying to say.

Message to other posters...

Don't get sucked into his world, he is the type of person to debate anything. If you're right he won't admit it, and wants to drag you down. Let's just stop it already?

If you really want to discuss this then send him a PM!
Tortillas are sleeping bags for ground beef.

#187 the Battle Cat

the Battle Cat

    Carnage Served Raw

  • Admin
  • 17376 posts
  • Location:Citadel City, Lh'owon
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 26 April 2005 - 01:59 PM

Maestro, on April 26th 2005, 07:47 AM, said:

If you really want to discuss this then send him a PM!

View Post


This is the best advice in the entire thread.
Gary Simmons
the Battle Cat

#188 Siriusfox

Siriusfox

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1148 posts
  • Steam Name:opensiriusfox
  • Location:Washington State

Posted 26 April 2005 - 04:08 PM

PM should be used for more than just debate.

If you have some comment that one person should see, but the rest of the board sees as spam, PM.

If you want to chat mindlessly about whatever suites you, don't use an old thread PM someone!

Comment

If even in PM they will not admit, get an article, if they just say "Bah" after many a  fact (Like the people noted in my sig.) then end the conversation with the ignorant !
20'' iMac Intel Core Duo 2GHz, 10.6.5, 2GB RAM, 256MB ATI X1600

"Home computers are being called upon to perform many new functions, including the consumption of homework formerly eaten by the dog." -Doug Larson

#189 Shade

Shade

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Location:Maine

Posted 26 April 2005 - 04:10 PM

I have lost the point of this thread, it smells like spam to me.


...why won't it just DIE!
Honor but above all, Loyalty.

#190 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 12 May 2005 - 12:23 AM

RandyWang, on April 14th 2005, 05:32 AM, said:

the ability of the OS to allow any program to completely commandeer the processor's time.

No, it doesn't. Like OSX, the scheduler is fair. You can make an application take over the screen - on both OSs. You can give one app priority over the others - on both OSs. Neither has the effect you seem to believe it has. At worst, you could say that Mach has a larger overhead. Just look at how much of your CPUs are used when idle to see the effect, which isn't big enough for this topic.


What do Macs need to be considered a gaming platform? Cheaper gaming macs.
9200s and 5200s aren't for gaming (and dispicably so when not upgradable). 9600s are low-end and skimpy for a $1300 computer, again even worse when not upgradable. Mobile 6800s are out and not in PowerBooks. 9800s are low-mid range, which is very slim pickings for PowerMacs since the next model up isn't a mid-range 6600gt or x700. Having dead-end AGP in PowerMacs means you won't find much better than a 6800 when it comes time. Upgrade options are also another problem, not because the Mac market is too small, but because Apple and ATI won't let you use PC cards.

The CPUs are somewhat worse, since the low-end Minis, iBooks, and PowerBooks have slow, low-power CPUs that are non-upgradeable. The new iMacs are better (still fairly slow), but the upgrades will be expensive (if even possible). The PowerMacs are a bit of an oddity. They're dual CPU models, which makes them fast at non-games, but means they're that much more expensive without gains in games. You might want a 2.7 with a 6600gt to get the best bang/buck, but you'd be way out of luck since Apple doesn't care about that.

This base hardware makes a difference in what can be considered the Mac gaming market. Apple ships mostly low-end Macs (especially over the last 6 months or so that the PowerMacs stagnated), and any publisher or developer looking at the market sees that most Macs just aren't cut out for the latest games. Doom3, in particular, took the risk of ignoring a huge part of the Mac market. This shows to everyone that Apple doesn't care about gaming, which puts off more people. Some of those people then say that all Macs suck for games. While the higher-end PowerMacs do hold their own (without a 5200 or 9600, at least) the lower-end ones do suck and deserve that criticism.

#191 Belcarius

Belcarius

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 387 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 12 May 2005 - 05:36 AM

Boy, talk about bumping.
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his" - George S. Patton

#192 Auron

Auron

    Billowing Smokestack of BS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3365 posts
  • Location:CT USA

Posted 12 May 2005 - 07:27 AM

bobbob, on May 12th 2005, 01:23 AM, said:

This shows to everyone that Apple doesn't care about gaming, which puts off more people.

View Post

It doesn't show that all dude.

#193 JonB

JonB

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts

Posted 13 May 2005 - 08:58 PM

I think people look at Mac gaming from a "PC enthusiast" perspective, which is a mistake. I think of Mac hardware almost like a console (closed, controlled, non-upgradeable environment), and the centerpiece is the iMac. All Mac games are made to at least run on the latest iMac, just as all console games are designed to run on their respective consoles. So if you have the latest iMac, you're set to go, and you can play any Mac game out there.

This is of course, more of a "casual" perspective. But then the Mac is not out to target hardcore DIY PC enthusiasts who like to build, tweak, test, and benchmark (heck you can't even properly enable AA/AF and run at native res on all Macs). Mac gaming should not be superficially looked at in numbers or features, it should be regarded as an experience. Apple's latest iMac or better will provide you with that experience.

But for the power users who want Power Macs and 6800s and such for faster gaming at higher settings, I think Apple is sitting on a great opportunity with their single 1.8 Power Mac. It is a shame that it's just stagnating and being outclassed by the iMac. Apple could upgrade it and really push it as the hardcore gamer's Mac.