Jump to content

Apple: Form vs. Function


Swad
 Share

162 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Like I said exclude 2000 since it was based on a different codebase. Did you even read what I wrote?

 

Oh I see now what you meant, my mistake.

 

May be your argument, but I was basing it on this:

 

If you want to put it that way, Windows 2000 was the first OS based on the nt kernel that had multimedia capability. Then came Windows XP, and now we got Windows Vista. Looks like Vista is the third one to me.

 

But I just came up with that now. In reality It's been quite a few generations since Microsoft came out with their first OS. At least 10 I'd say. Apple had around the same amount I'd say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to put it that way, Windows 2000 was the first OS based on the nt kernel that had multimedia capability. Then came Windows XP, and now we got Windows Vista. Looks like Vista is the third one to me.

 

But I just came up with that now. In reality It's been quite a few generations since Microsoft came out with their first OS. At least 10 I'd say. Apple had around the same amount I'd say.

lol, you're hilarious.

 

You say "MS always gets it right the 3rd time"

I say "Wrong: 95, 98, Me" and you agree Me sucks.

 

But then you counter with: "First NT kernel with multimedia". You don't pick just NT based OSes, you add only ones with multimedia capability. (XP was fine anyways, you could have used NT -> 2000 -> XP)

But that really wasn't the point, you said always, how does that change the first three? :(

 

No offense but you call out EFI saying he lumps things together to serve his own purpose, how is what you just did to defend your statement any different?

 

I actually think XP SP2 was a pretty decent OS. Does it have issues, sure does, what OS doesn't. Does it have strengths, yup. Does it have disadvantages, yup. Vista brought many important improvements, but some would argue that it took a step back, especially visually. That happens, I say the same thing with Leopard. Why do people argue about who came out with a feature first? It's a great marketing tool for Jobs, but doesn't this happen with ever product, computer or otherwise? And how do you pick which points to argue were copied, it's so arbitrary.

(We all know that entire Windows idea was copied anyways since the day Gates saw the original Mac OS which they bought from Xerox :P )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking from an OS evolutionary standpoint, in which case, Windows 2000 does come after Windows 98...

Actually Windows 2000 comes after NT 4.0, NT 4.0 coming chronologically between Win95 and Win98 (which begs why you didn't include it on your list). Two separate product lines.

 

Of course even setting aside your confusion on the the matter the real headscratcher is still you rating Windows 98 so high over over Windows 2000.

 

EDIT: Hang on, maybe there is a correlation between these two. How much actual first-hand experience do you have with the OSes in question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say "Wrong: 95, 98, Me" ....

... because you don't have a clue? Me wasn't really the 3rd anything unless you just arbitrarily start counting DOS Windows at Windows 95. That, I believe is pyrates' point.

 

Windows Me was a consolation to the market to stop-gap people that insisted on running DOS. It was dead before it was born. The more cynical might question whethere it stank so much to convince people to get the frig over it and dump DOS already. :angel: But I'm more of the mind that it was just that it was way past time for DOS to die. The architecture was never concieved for nor truely capable of growing into what was being asked of it. It was the software equivalent to a big congelled lump of spagetti that was never built with aspirations of scalability. *shrug*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Windows 2000 comes after NT 4.0, NT 4.0 coming chronologically between Win95 and Win98 (which begs why you didn't include it on your list). Two separate product lines.

 

Of course even setting aside your confusion on the the matter the real headscratcher is still you rating Windows 98 so high over over Windows 2000.

 

EDIT: Hang on, maybe there is a correlation between these two. How much actual first-hand experience do you have with the OSes in question?

 

Ok, let me make this clear:

 

In order:

 

1. MS-DOS

2. Windows 3.0

3. OS/2

4. Windows 3.1/NT

5. Windows 95

6. Windows 4.0 (NT)

7. Windows 98

8. Windows 2000

9. Windows ME

10. Windows XP

11. Windows Server 2003

12. Windows Vista

 

From the above little historical archiving, you can clearly see that regardless of whether or not 2K comes after NT 4.0, in terms of release date (which would help in the evolutionary timeline), it comes almost 2 years AFTER Windows 98. The codebase is irrelevant here. I am going by the release date. You are going by the date with regards to the technical underpinnings of the codebase of the OS, which is another issue on its own, and one which I am not using.

 

I stated Windows 98 over 2000, becuase from my experience, and from numerous friends, 98 had better stability, and games support than 2000 did, not to mention it's short lifespan of just over a year (talking about 2K).

 

You cannot combine the technical analysis, with general analysis....they both will likely never go together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows 98 had better stability than Windows 2000???? :( You just deep-sixed any shread of credibility you had left on the matter. :D:P Taking your your "friends" down with you. I ran Windows 2000 on a single machine for 7 years without requiring a reinstall or format (my son still uses it). Years at a time without a blue screen, sometimes weeks or even months without rebooting or shutting off the computer (as in the same boot of the OS running 24/7). And this was with writing C++ programs, which on DOS you need to boot all the time. And usually reinstall every 6-12 months. I did add a second boot when I added a new HDD, for two reasons. The first was a really old NHL game that my son liked to made the version check on DirectX poorly so it refused to work with newer DirectX, so I kept the old boot so he could play it. The second was I wanted the main boot for the OS on the much faster, larger, and quieter new HDD.

 

 

Oh, and yeah games that were built for DOS had better support on DOS since that was their native platform. :wacko: This was the case for the smaller market games that were built in the mid to late 90's. Of course games that were built to take advantage of NT rocked out on NT. Before Windows 2000 NT wasn't initially as supported by games for the same reason that Mac still has problems with game support. It was a different platform, and one that didn't have nearly the same installed base. And generally game developers are notorious as hacks that put a very low priority on stability.

 

5. Windows 95

6. Windows 4.0 (NT)

7. Windows 98 <---------June 25, 1998

8. Windows 2000 <------February 17, 2000

 

....a list where you are still mixing two entirely different products. :rolleyes: You lumping them together demonstrating your lack of knowledeg of their capabilities and such. So, why did NT 4.0 not get in that original there again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... because you don't have a clue? Me wasn't really the 3rd anything unless you just arbitrarily start counting DOS Windows at Windows 95. That, I believe is pyrates' point.

Excuse me, I was using the list they used/made, not me. (Don't understand why the lineage means much for either platform anyways.)

 

Windows Me was a consolation to the market to stop-gap people that insisted on running DOS.

Although you are right that it was a stop gap measure maintaining real mode DOS support, MS still marketed this as a "Home Edition" as compared to Windows 2000. To the general public this was the next version.

 

It was dead before it was born.

100% agree, much worse than 98 SE. Thank god XP was out within a year of it.

I told every customer I had to not use it. Never had more issues with any OS than I found on Me machines.

 

From my experience 2000 was clearly better than 98 SE even though it did lack some needed support for home users.

 

Seems the point he is making is that although 2000 was targeted to professionals, and Me home users, it didn't follow that path for most users.

(Of course we know they are different code bases)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems the point he is making is that although 2000 was targeted to professionals, and Me home users, it didn't follow that path for most users.

(Of course we know they are different code bases)

 

Thank you :)...atleast *someone* understands what I was meaning. Jeez.

 

Before Windows 2000 NT wasn't initially as supported by games for the same reason that Mac still has problems with game support. It was a different platform, and one that didn't have nearly the same installed base.

 

Do you know how DirectX and OpenGL even work? Macs have issues (more specifically OS X) with native game support becuase of the way in which OpenGL operates. OpenGL does not rely on hardware features of the GPU in order to perform algorithm functions....it is all built into the openGL library itself. What OpenGL does is basically use the GPU for hardware acceleration by using those library calls...thats all. DirectX, on the other hand, REQUIRES the hardware features in order to work with the graphics card and needs constant access to the HAL ( more so in Vista) in order to play games. What you said in relation to Win2K NT has nothing to do with the reason why Macs (OS X) still has issues with game support.

 

Moreover, Windows 2K was introduced the same time as Dx7 was...and Win98(SE) was around the same time when Dx6a (speifically for SE) was designed. Both of them had perfect Dx support that was specifically designed for those platforms...but there were far more games for Win98, even after XP came along, the Win2K badge was dropped from most of the game packages almost immediately...while that's not the case with 95-->98, and even from XP--> Vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you :) ...atleast *someone* understands what I was meaning. Jeez.

It has become very apparent what you "mean". You and your friends are the very maroons that Microsoft made Me because of. Windows 98 more stable than Windows 2000 indeed.

Do you know how DirectX and OpenGL even work?

LOL, oh this should be choice.....

Macs have issues (more specifically OS X) with native game support becuase of the way in which OpenGL operates.

OpenGL does not rely on hardware features of the GPU in order to perform algorithm functions....it is all built into the openGL library itself. What OpenGL does is basically use the GPU for hardware acceleration by using those library calls...thats all. DirectX, on the other hand, REQUIRES the hardware features in order to work with the graphics card and needs constant access to the HAL ( more so in Vista) in order to play games. What you said in relation to Win2K NT has nothing to do with the reason why Macs (OS X) still has issues with game support.

Oh yeah. A real hoot to read. :yoji::)

Macs have a support problem because game developers largely don't write for them. It is that simple, they haven't been bothered to develop for the Mac. Game developers have a hard enough time making money selling on popular platforms. The game industry is structured around the blockbuster model. A blockbuster on Mac is still an also-ran by the standards of game publishers.

 

It isn't particularly techincal other than it takes work (meaning money) to support both Mac and PCs.

 

Now EA is going to take a run at using Cider (IIRC?) for cheap ports. With the advent of at least running on the same CPU family it might work out, I'm interested in seeing. Sure it doesn't help that Macs are overall a step behind PCs with graphics hardware, that's much more of an issue than anything to do with OpenGL vs. DirectX performance (even if there was a signifcant difference, which there really isn't if you write your program to OpenGL instead of DirectX). Not that there aren't a LOT of PC gamers that are using relatively low powered machines (check out the Steam stats on this) but still Macs start out a step behind that.

 

Moreover, Windows 2K was introduced the same time as Dx7 was...and Win98(SE) was around the same time when Dx6a (speifically for SE) was designed. Both of them had perfect Dx support that was specifically designed for those platforms...but there were far more games for Win98, even after XP came along, the Win2K badge was dropped from most of the game packages almost immediately...while that's not the case with 95-->98, and even from XP--> Vista.

This doesn't give you pause to think maybe it didn't actually have anything to do with DirectX then??? :turbin: That maybe, just maybe it was just all their old DOS hack {censored} code that 2nd rate (or worse) game developers were writing/using? Hacks that if Microsoft supported all of them in NT would actually degrade the OS (the backwards compatibility with DOS has been bad enough drag on NT as it is)? Of course I had at that point already been rocking out on Quake 2 (actually Action Quake ) on NT 4.0 for 2+ years prior to Windows 2000 coming out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Macs have a support problem because game developers largely don't write for them. It is that simple, they haven't been bothered to develop for the Mac.

 

The key words there are "haven't been bothered". They are however, starting to take notice. OpenGL could actually put DirectX (10 even) to shame if it is actually optimized. Here is a screenshot of how it would look if games were optimized for OpenGL 2.1 vs DirectX10: Link. Gaming on OS X has tremendous potential, it's just that the damn game developers are too lazy to revelop for the Mac platform, and revert to things like ports. To make things worse, Microsoft crippled OpenGl support in Vista, so game developers that develop natively in OpenGl (iD for example), will have a hard time under Windows Vista.

 

You are saying as if the Mac platform is inferior to develop games on...when infact it's far more superior..once you put forth the work. Game developers do not often develop for OS X, because the vast majority of the common people (incl gamers) use Windows...so naturally this is where the $$ would be. But that does not necessarily make it the best platform to develop on from technical standards, which often goes amiss in discussions.

 

Now EA is going to take a run at using Cider (IIRC?) for cheap ports. With the advent of at least running on the same CPU family it might work out, I'm interested in seeing.

 

To be honest, I don't think this Cider technology is going to takeoff. If EA thinks they can make a few extra $$ by taking the lazy way out, I seriously think they should be criticised. I have yet to play a Cider wrapped game, so I cannot tell whether I'll be getting the same FPS as a Windows box or not.

 

Sure it doesn't help that Macs are overall a step behind PCs with graphics hardware...

 

Behind? The new iMacs have Radeon 2600 Pro's, which are fully Dx10 capable cards...the Macbook Pro's have GeForce 8600GT's in them...which again are the latest set of Dx10 cards. The Mac Pro's have options of either 7300GT, Quadro FX4500 (which is essentially a GeForce 7800GTX once unlocked), and Radeon X1900XT's....so to I have no idea where you are pulling this "Macs are a step behind PC's with graphics hardware" nonsense from. Have you even seen the latest specs of the computers? For the info, Apple got yet another special deal with Intel to get the fastest X7900 C2DE chips before any one else in the market. Why...becuase that chip was officially announced only today, more than weeks after they already appeard on the new iMacs.

 

I've posted these in another thread...but perhaps you should sit down, and watch all these videos:

 

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=KamikazeX1

 

That's me on my MBP.

 

 

This doesn't give you pause to think maybe it didn't actually have anything to do with DirectX then???

 

It didn't, which is what I said. However, game developers had the new Dx API to work with (7), but a lot of games between 99-01 kept coming out with Dx6 support. This is what I was talking about. Then it went to dx8, and then Dx9 (which has the most games).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are saying as if the Mac platform is inferior to develop games on...

Historically if you actually want to see a return. Yup. Id tried it, developed Q3 concurently for Mac and released it at the same time as on the PC IIRC. They are the type of large market for the game that could possibly have a chance at making it work. Even America's Army had a Mac client (one of the few professionally developed games that isn't done for direct income). Discontinued due to interest/use level not being worth the development effort (read $$$) it was taking.

...so naturally this is where the $$ would be.

....which has what to do with being "lazy"? It is a low margin, blockbuster driven industry. The economics keep developers away from Macs. Calling a business choosing to not spend money for a poor return "lazy" but....well, it just makes you look like a silly, silly lad.

Behind? The new iMacs have Radeon 2600 Pro's, which are fully Dx10 capable cards...

...and processing power-wise slower than the upper-midrange of the last generation of graphic cards. Oh sure you can eck out 30FPS average on Bioshock at a lower resolution on your MBP with DX9. But do you really think it's anywhere in the ballpark to a 512MB 2900XT running 1680x1050 all-eye-candy DX10 where you might dip down to a momentary valley of 30 FPS in really hectic scenes (my own desktop machine)? And that isn't even the top end for current desktop graphic cards, although it's working out pretty respectable for DX10.

 

One....step...behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....which has what to do with being "lazy"? It is a low margin, blockbuster driven industry. The economics keep developers away from Macs. Calling a business choosing to not spend money for a poor return "lazy" but....well, it just makes you look like a silly, silly lad.

 

I said lazy because they dont have the willpower to do research under OpenGL, and to know that visually their games can look better under OpenGl than Direct X.

 

...and processing power-wise slower than the upper-midrange of the last generation of graphic cards. Oh sure you can eck out 30FPS average on Bioshock at a lower resolution on your MBP with DX9. But do you really think it's anywhere in the ballpark to a 512MB 2900XT running 1680x1050 all-eye-candy DX10 where you might dip down to a momentary valley of 30 FPS in really hectic scenes (my own desktop machine)? And that isn't even the top end for current desktop graphic cards, although it's working out pretty respectable for DX10.

 

One....step...behind.

 

Funny how you ignore the Mac Pro's X1900XT or the Quadro4500. Anywho, you are comparing a laptop (My MBP) to a Desktop (your comp)...which is not even a fair comparison to begin with. Furthermore, you are talking like every Dell, Hp, Acer, etc, etc. PC laptop and desktops come with a 2900XT , or an 8800GTX by standard...when infact most of them come with integrated graphics, or low end GPU's like the 8400, X1300, or the 2400. You cannot compare a custom built PC with a store bought Mac or PC...I've said that for like the millionth time (to Pyrates). A Mac pro with an X1900XT 512MB GDR3 will also be able rock BioShock at 1680x1050 with all the candy turned up, funny you don't realize nor mention that. And currently, visually in most games, there is almost no difference between Dx9 and Dx10 at all. In Bioshock, the only small difference when playing in Dx10 is incresed particles...thats ALL. Yes, I have played BioShock on my Macbook Pro under Vista in full Dx10 glory as well...and visually...there is no differnce other than slightly better particle effects, and the FPS being a lot lower. So I went back to XP (20Gb partition) for gaming and got rid of Vista.

 

Until I see every single Windows laptop or desktop offering a decent graphics card by default...Macs...are...perfectly...in...tune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how you ignore the Mac Pro's X1900XT or the Quadro4500

What, you want me to type out "One....step...behind." again?

I said lazy because they dont have the willpower to do research under OpenGL, and to know that visually their games can look better under OpenGl than Direct X.

:) .... You know, you are just so far out there...I'm just throwing my hands up as to where to even begin addressing your misconceptions.

Anywho, you are comparing a laptop (My MBP) to a Desktop (your comp)...which is not even a fair comparison to begin with.

Hey, your movie links. :P But that isn't just your laptop. That's the iMacs too. You really think the 2600Pro is significantly speedier than the 8600 in the MBP? Sorry, my bad assuming you had at least a passing knowledge of the subject. I figured when it intersected with Macs you might. Well let me break it to you then, it isn't. There is a huge gap in the performance continum between the 2600-whatever is in the iMac (sounds like the iMac might not have an actual 2600Pro but instead an underclocked version of the next card up, the 2600XT) and the 2900XT. Big enough to easily squeeze in a couple of price-points ( http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=15701 ) between the full 2600XT and the 2900XT. Not that NVidia doesn't already have a couple there themselves (the two GTS cards).

Furthermore, you are talking like every Dell, Hp, Acer, etc, etc. PC laptop and desktops come with a 2900XT , or an 8800GTX by standard...when infact most of them come with integrated graphics, or low end GPU's like the 8400, X1300, or the 2400.

I already addressed that a couple posts back. Yup, there are people running slower cards. But then there are people running old slow iMacs too. But still there isn't any cards to run the sizzle on to sell people on the games. Even though they'll never see the pic outside of marketing. Sounds goofy? Yup, it is. It's also the same reason that game promo materials will use prerendered shots that'll never show up in the game. They are selling a story. Welcome to the wonderful world of marketing. *shrug*

You cannot compare a custom built PC with a store bought Mac or PC...

You can buy these graphic cards in retail stores. You can buy off-the-shelf Dells and such with them too. It's just another radio button to get, say, a Dell with a 768MB 8800 GTX.

I've said that for like the millionth time (to Pyrates).

...and you could say it another million times without it transforming into anything more than the same pile of {censored}. "There are WMD in Iraq, there are WMD in Iraq, there are WMD in Iraq, there are WMD in Iraq, there are WMD in Iraq...." Are they there yet? ;)

A Mac pro with an X1900XT 512MB GDR3 will also be able rock BioShock at 1680x1050 with all the candy turned up funny you don't realize nor mention that.

I don't mention it because is it largely incorrect to say such.

And currently, visually in most games, there is almost no difference between Dx9 and Dx10 at all. In Bioshock, the only small difference when playing in Dx10 is incresed particles...thats ALL. Yes, I have played BioShock on my Macbook Pro under Vista in full Dx10 glory as well...and visually...there is no differnce other than slightly better particle effects, and the FPS being a lot lower. So I went back to XP (20Gb partition) for gaming and got rid of Vista.

LOL, well did it occur to you that maybe you didn't see the difference because:

1) you are using a lower resolution

2) it turned into a slideshow on the 8600 (which I expect it to do as well on the 2600)

Because I did indeed see a difference. And not just from examining screen caps. It just felt a lot...flatter.

 

Face it EFI, you are just talking krap waaaaay outside your realm of knowledge and, it seems to me, punching out at me because of your unhappiness with how things just are. Well how about you back off the messenger, kthx. I'd rather not put you on intellectual ignore like I've done with MyMac8MyPC. I'd like to give you more credit than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Face it EFI, you are just talking krap waaaaay outside your realm of knowledge and, it seems to me, punching out at me because of your unhappiness with how things just are. Well how about you back off the messenger, kthx. I'd rather not put you on intellectual ignore like I've done with MyMac8MyPC. I'd like to give you more credit than that.

 

Your the typical Windows tech junkie who just doesn't have the willpower to look at anything beyond that technical aspect of computers (more so Windows). I'm sorry to say, but there is no other way I can explain you. That's the sad truth. You seem to not be able to open up to the common perceptions that the average joe thinks/uses from both of the systems (Windows/Macs), and instead constantly speaks from the technical angle. There is nothing wrong in that....but your assumptions are way out of order to begin even comprehending when I am trying to detail why you should not be thinking from that angle...becuase...umm...the gaming market for PC's are only fraction of a percent when compared to other similar markets ( a la consoles )

 

In the technology world...there is no such thing as future proofing, and I dearly hope you out of everyone here would know that better. Unfortunetely you don't (atleast as of now). So you boasting about your 2900XT is absolutely pointless becuase that sense of pride is only temporary....as your card in 3 months from now will be at the bare bottom of the {censored} pile in the high end card sector. There is nothing that can be done...that's just how it works. That's not to say that it's still not a great card...just like the X1900XT on the Mac Pro. Before the AMD released the HD series...that X1900XT on the Mac Pro, not even a year old...was one of the kings of the high end graphics card market. Today it's at the bottom barrel, and the HD series are at the top (I'm spekaing for AMD here, I'm not including nVidia).

 

You can buy these graphic cards in retail stores. You can buy off-the-shelf Dells and such with them too. It's just another radio button to get, say, a Dell with a 768MB 8800 GTX.

 

Your price still wont be as cheap as if you were to custom build it with the 8800GTX...that was my primary point.

 

From a laptop GPU perspective, the 8600M GT on my MBP is excellent, considering the laptop is only 1" thin. How many other PC makers do you know out there have laptops that are 1" thin all around and have the 8600M GT in them with C2D processor at 2.4Ghz?

 

There are three types of gamers:

 

1. Solitaire players

2. Casual gamers

3. Hardcore gamers

 

I fall under the casual gamers...which is why I know I will never need an 8800GTX, becuase I dont need to play at 1920 x 1200 with 16XAF and 16AA on. I can more than happily game on my MBP because as shown in the videos just fine, because I have other things to do in life that are more important. And for your information, I did turn up the resolution on my MBP when I was playing BioShock to the full 1440 x 900 becuase I was curious to see if there were actual Dx10 effects that were worthwhile from DX9. There were (particle effects), but not giving up 10fps on the same settings under Vista. If 20fps sounds like a slideshow to you (which you said)....then there is something wrong. Saying "it felt a lot flatter" does not even remotely explain the difference bettwen Dx9 vs Dx10 experience. Atleast if you are going to state the difference, say it in a way which a person is able to visualize. :wacko:

 

In other games, such as Half Life 2, which also has fantastic graphics even by modern standards...I can fully max out the display settings, hook up my MBP to my 23" cinema display HD, and play the game fantastically at 1920 x 1200. Looks like it's you who's unhappy, becuase I'm enjoying this laptop better than the Dell Inspiron, Alienware Area-51 desktop with a GeForce 6800 (2004), or the Toshiba Satellite I had before. And that says something.

 

The iMac, even though the 2600Pro's performance does not match up to the 8600M GT, is still the Pro variation. Apple has not rated it otherwise. What is weird however, is that my GeForce 8600M GT is shown to have 512MB under Windows. I don't know if Turbocache is enabled or not, but under OS X it says 256MB (which is what Apple rated it at), but under Windows XP, in both the DirectX Diagnosis (dxdiag) screen, it says 512MB, and it says 512MB under the ForceWare control panel as well. So did Apple actually ship a higher end card than they said they did? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your price still wont be as cheap as if you were to custom build it with the 8800GTX...that was my primary point.

What does it matter if I can buy it 3rd party or pay Dell an extra few bucks to drop it in and have them worry about the drivers? It is still there and it is "fair"....and you are still full of {censored} to try exclude it. Hey, I guess you really can't include any of those radio button options on the Apple site either? Seeing how there are 3rd party suppliers where you can get the hardware cheaper? You having said it a "million" times before just puts emphasis on just how out of touch with reality you are and/or choose to be.

Your the typical Windows tech junkie who just doesn't have the willpower to look at anything beyond that technical aspect of computers (more so Windows).

LOL. I don't have the willpower refuse to learn and stick to actual facts as opposed to tromping off into some made up bullsh!t and try to hang an argument on some irrelavent matter of "fair"? That isn't "tech junkie", that's using rational thought to assess the situation at hand. You might try it sometime, it's pretty cool. ^_^ This isn't a game of kickball in the schoolyard where you try to set up and rig some arbitrary rules for the purpose of evening out the chances of each team. :blush: You use "rules" that measure things is meaningful ways even that puts one team at an overwhelming [dis]advantage before they've even stepped on the field.

 

You are just beaten down with facts ^_^ and now you are trying some sort of desperate, last-ditch bid with a bizzare claim of knowledge of higher truth. :D Topping it off with a little "Windows" name calling. That, my friend, is the real sad truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does it matter if I can buy it 3rd party or pay Dell an extra few bucks to drop it in and have them worry about the drivers? It is still there and it is "fair"....and you are still full of {censored} to try exclude it. Hey, I guess you really can't include any of those radio button options on the Apple site either? Seeing how there are 3rd party suppliers where you can get the hardware cheaper? You having said it a "million" times before just puts emphasis on just how out of touch with reality you are and/or choose to be.

 

LOL. I don't have the willpower refuse to learn and stick to actual facts as opposed to tromping off into some made up bullsh!t and try to hang an argument on some irrelavent matter of "fair"? That isn't "tech junkie", that's using rational thought to assess the situation at hand. You might try it sometime, it's pretty cool. :) This isn't a game of kickball in the schoolyard where you try to set up and rig some arbitrary rules for the purpose of evening out the chances of each team. :) You use "rules" that measure things is meaningful ways even that puts one team at an overwhelming [dis]advantage before they've even stepped on the field.

 

You are just beaten down with facts ;) and now you are trying some sort of desperate, last-ditch bid with a bizzare claim of knowledge of higher truth. ;) Topping it off with a little "Windows" name calling. That, my friend, is the real sad truth.

 

 

made up bullsh!i? That's you who's doing that...not me. I have shown that the hardware on Macs is the latest, which you said they are not. I have also mentioned that you cannot compare a custom home built PC to a Mac/PC, becuase they would be much cheaper...but aparently that point is not getting thorugh to you. You are not beating me with facts...you are simply spewing out FUD more than anything. Everything you have said here is personal opinion:

 

- Macs have yesterdays hardware (when infact Apple got the Clovertowns on the Mac Pros, and X7900 on the new iMacs before anyone else in the market, as well as being one of the first makers to offer the 8600M GT, and the 7200RPM Seagate HD's on the MBPs)

- The iMac might not have an actual X2600 Pro, but an overclocked XT

- It just felt a lot "flatter" in describing the difference between Dx9 vs 10 in BioShock

 

etc.

 

By repeatedly stating that I don't know what I am talking about several times is not going to make it true. :D. I happen to have built several PC's myself...so I know the advantages and disadvantages of building/buying a PC vs getting a Mac. Have you ever used a Mac? I never asked this question before, but I must ask it now, since you seem to have no knowledge of Macs other than the advertised specs at Apple (that to you are being speculative with the iMacs).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

made up bullsh!i? That's you who's doing that...not me.

 

- you just listed off less-than-leading-edge for top of the line performance PC parts *shrug*

- I was giving the 2600 in the iMac credit, the XT is a faster card. Sorry I don't have the link handy for the info about why the 2600 might not be the 2600Pro it was initally assumed it was (because 2600Pro is a passive cooled card).

- It isn't just particle effects in Bioshock, as you incorrectly asserted. For example the water is much different. No, I hadn't gone through a screen by screen, pixel by pixel breakdown....but I had at least played it (instead of seeing a small slideshow of it)

 

Now you are just being a dumbAzz. :) Fine, go on the 'bafoon' list with MyMac8MyPC then. *shrug*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but I had at least played it (instead of seeing a small slideshow of it)

 

Now you are just being a dumbAzz. ;) Fine, go on the 'bafoon' list with MyMac8MyPC then. *shrug*

 

For the last freaking time I played BioShock in full Dx10 glory under Vista... and 20fps is not a slideshow. Get that straight. Jeez.

 

Don't worry, surprisingly you made it on to mine as well...along with Pyrates, RobotSkip, and Vertigo60. In all honesty, I think the MSDN forums would be a better suit for you, since I can't seem to see you taking part in the OS X 86 community in any way so far from how muched I've gauged your posts. Anyways, good bye, and good riddens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the last freaking time I played BioShock in full Dx10 glory under Vista... and 20fps is not a slideshow. Get that straight. Jeez.

ME get it staight? :D It was the first time you mentioned a number. "and the FPS being a lot lower." But whatever you like, so it was your own shortcoming that you didn't see it. My bad for making excuses for you. :)

 

So what does it in your estimation take to make it on the "scene"? A lack of knowledge, an unwillingness/inability to learn, and a "f*ck the facts, my thinking is above that" mentality, with a nice set of jingoistic blinders? Damn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the first time you mentioned a number. "and the FPS being a lot lower." But whatever you like, so it was your own shortcoming that you didn't see it. My bad for making excuses for you. ;)

 

...full 1440 x 900 becuase I was curious to see if there were actual Dx10 effects that were worthwhile from DX9. There were (particle effects), but not giving up 10fps on the same settings under Vista. If 20fps sounds like a slideshow to you (which you said)....

 

Did you even READ my previous post? Holy {censored} at the comprehension levels these days. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft crippled OpenGl support in Vista, so game developers that develop natively in OpenGl (iD for example), will have a hard time under Windows Vista.

OpenGL has always been crippled on Windows, since MS hasn't shipped anything beyond OpenGL 1.1 since Windows 95. Which means to achieve anything beyond 1.1, you need a vendor-supplied ICD, which has always been the case - nothing new to Vista.

 

OpenGL does not rely on hardware features of the GPU in order to perform algorithm functions....it is all built into the openGL library itself. What OpenGL does is basically use the GPU for hardware acceleration by using those library calls...thats all. DirectX, on the other hand, REQUIRES the hardware features in order to work with the graphics card and needs constant access to the HAL ( more so in Vista) in order to play games.

OpenGL relies on the hardware on Windows, because of the before mentioned 1.1 issue. GL 1.1 is the only available software implementation, whereas on the Mac, Apple provides a full (slow) 2.0 software implementation AFAIK, and on Linux and such, you can use Mesa for software rendering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, you are talking like every Dell, Hp, Acer, etc, etc. PC laptop and desktops come with a 2900XT , or an 8800GTX by standard...when infact most of them come with integrated graphics, or low end GPU's like the 8400, X1300, or the 2400. You cannot compare a custom built PC with a store bought Mac or PC...I've said that for like the millionth time (to Pyrates). A Mac pro with an X1900XT 512MB GDR3 will also be able rock BioShock at 1680x1050 with all the candy turned up, funny you don't realize nor mention that.

 

No they all don't. But at least some of them do and give you the option if you want it. How about SLI? Where's a mac with that? Not on the Mac Pro's because those are workstations made for graphics/audio rendering. Where's the midrange desktop mac with a core 2 quad, 4 GB of ram, and 2 8800 GTX's? I can go to a small computer store here and get a custom system built exactly how I want it. And keep it low enough that I can get the most bang for my buck. With a Mac it's all or nothing.

 

And currently, visually in most games, there is almost no difference between Dx9 and Dx10 at all. In Bioshock, the only small difference when playing in Dx10 is incresed particles...thats ALL. Yes, I have played BioShock on my Macbook Pro under Vista in full Dx10 glory as well...and visually...there is no differnce other than slightly better particle effects, and the FPS being a lot lower. So I went back to XP (20Gb partition) for gaming and got rid of Vista.

 

You are correct, in that all DirectX 10 adds is extra particles so far. But it's still better then what Mac has for gaming. You have a limited selection of graphics cards to choose from if you select a Mac Pro, otherwise you don't have any choice at all.

 

Until I see every single Windows laptop or desktop offering a decent graphics card by default...Macs...are...perfectly...in...tune.

 

Yes, for someone who doesn't game. For someone who does, they are a terrible choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry, surprisingly you made it on to mine as well...along with Pyrates, RobotSkip, and Vertigo60. In all honesty, I think the MSDN forums would be a better suit for you, since I can't seem to see you taking part in the OS X 86 community in any way so far from how muched I've gauged your posts. Anyways, good bye, and good riddens.

 

I've taken part in the OS X 86 community. I've installed an early version of 10.4 if I remember correctly. I've ran it in a virtual machine. And even now I've installed an old 17 GB IDE hard drive and installed another network card to be able to run it natively with version 10.4.8 as the 2 gig ethernet ports I have builtin to my motherboard don't exactly work in OS X and are working on getting the update 10.4.10 working. I consider it to be a hobby at most as I don't like the UI. I don't like how the home and end keys go to the beginning and end of a document instead of to the beginning and end of the current line you are on, like it does on windows and linux. Very frustrating to me.

 

I also use linux here to run servers at work and as servers at home to host a bot I run on irc as well as a router that allows all my desktops to use the internet, but not as a desktop OS. The most is using Ubuntu as a hobby for me. I do like its UI more then OS X I must say. Application menus help a lot is all I gotta say.

 

Surprised yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the argument is CAN you get some higher end parts for PC, of course that is true. No one is arguing that.

But save for the video card in the latest iMac, I believe EFI is saying for prebuilt systems, Apple is in step with most PC offerings and often the higher.

(His example: Santa Rosa, Clovertown, 8600 M GT, etc.)

 

My town has a population of only 70,000. In our biggest computer store, I can't even get a laptop over 2.0Ghz.

So I check Dell.ca:

  • Intel Core 2 Duo 2.33 GHz
  • 17" Wide Screen
  • 2GB DDR2
  • 160GB SATA HD
  • 256MB Nvidia Geforce Go 7900 GS
  • 8X CD/DVD Burner (DVD+/-RW DL)
  • Internal Bluetooth
  • 802.11g Ethernet

Price $3088 before tax. (shipping free)

 

So I check Apple.ca

  • Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz
  • 17" Wide Screen
  • 2GB DDR2
  • 160GB SATA HD
  • 256MB Nvidia Geforce 8600M GT
  • 8X CD/DVD Burner (DVD+/-RW DL)
  • 802.11n Ethernet

Price $3099 before tax. (shipping free)

 

Can you find other/better system somewhere, sure. But to John Q Public, in Canada at least, these are the 3 biggest computer retailers and you can see Apple machines are competitive both in features and price.)

 

 

*** YES we know you can build better white box desktops etc etc etc. We are talking about Apple's target market. Comparisons with PC designed for high end gaming is wrong. Would you compare a Chrysler Neon to a Lincoln Town car because they are both cars. No different target markets.

The question is, will the modified 2600 HD XT in the iMac be enough for even moderate gamers or will that group be lost also? Time will tell.

 

Bottom line is if you are a high end PC gamer Apple doesn't care about you. Obviously Apple has clearly decided with the rise in the power of home gaming units, (PS3, XBOX360), homes/families will have both and decided that form is going to be more important as the computer becomes more an integrated appliance in the home.

 

The real question should be is Apple ahead of the curve here and this is where computers will evolve or will the plain boxes be around for a long time still.

(How far off are integrated wall computers with touch screen, speech recognition, etc. Maybe that wall unit in Back to the Future 2 is just around the corner, iWall. :P )

Plus we are starting to see diminishing returns on the hardware increases. Does average joe care or tell the difference between 4x AA or 8x AA?

Are the additional/improved effects of a $400 more piece if hardware, worth $400?

Even some PC makers are starting to list their machines without included the CPU speed, which used to be a major selling point.

 

So it really brings us back to the original subject of this thread, Form vs. Function. More appropriate would be Form vs. more Function.

 

I think with the latest iMac Apple could still have achieved both goals. Do I understand why they made the choice they did, yes. Am I happy with it, no.

 

EFI, thanks for the link to those videos. Maybe instead of an iMac I should get a MBP and just hook it up to my 20" WS LCD. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...