Apple: Form vs. Function

[Dwight F]

Oops, missed that one. My bad, missed that indirect reference Yes, at this point I do tire easily trying to figure out WTF EFI is talking about. One mistake, yes feel free jump all over that! Enjoy! EFI's had very little opportunity afterall after a string of posts ranging from ill-informed to imbecilic. *thumbs up* Of course I STILL wouldn't have actually have changed the "slideshow" tag. An average of 20FPS is crappy. Actually 30FPS is crappy, 20FPS is very crapy. Studdering becomes pronounced for even the tolerant at around 16FPS and an average of 20FPS typically means dropping well into single digits. So yeah, that's fits the slang "slideshow" for me (hey, it be slang ). Interspersed with some periods of actual motion though it may be. Apparently it was enough that EFI didn't notice the shadows (or didn't actually get to that part of the demo) and the water effects (the latter of which seem to be much more evident in motion). Or EFI's an idoit. My money is on a little column A, a good portion of column B. But if full on idiot is his choice so then so be it!

 

Of course the head-to-head benchmarking I've seen so far (haven't bothered to do it myself) has the difference between DX9 and DX10 at a couple % points or so, +/-, as opposed to %30 lower for DX10, methinks something else could be going on there...perhaps biological input error or some other factor. Of course they, FiringSquad, tested a run through of the Medical Center (one of the more intensive sections) and some of their other numbers look a bit suspect (they are reporting much lower 2900XT numbers than I'm and many others are seeing, there might have been PCI-e issues I've seen others mention, or they didn't have the required hotfix in, not sure). They also didn't bother test with the 8600/2600 cards. I'm going to take a shot in the dark that it wasn't a priority for them to test with those because it's been very obvious for some time that those cards are going to be {censored} for gaming on new games that aren't using DX10 for speed optimizations instead of adding eye-candy.Meaning yes, Macs are a poor choice for a gaming machine for someone interested in playing games (that aren't years old, or run in a mode that they look dated).

 

Unless they've got the cash to drop on a Mac Pro and plus the cash to drop on a second video card that only gets used when they aren't booting OSX. Which of course someone unwilling to try make a living banking on that particular market segment is just "lazy". Of course EFI could stop being "lazy" and go write a game. He certainly feels highly knowledgable in the matter of all things graphic, shouldn't be a problem. Right? *cough*

You are correct, in that all DirectX 10 adds is extra particles so far.

Actually it adds much more. Although the games released so far are implementing it all (up until Bioshock the DX10 enabled releases have been ports to PC, ick). But even Bioshock does add more than just particles. There are the water effects (hard to screenshot that) and improvements on shadows (check around, there are some of those on the net, the baby carriage scene is one where it is very pronounced). Plus I, at least, finde the difference in the particle effects quite dramatic, which is why I guess they get the attentions.

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.

Yeah, it isn't so much crippled as they just don't bother implement it themselves. However the hooks are there for vendors to write it on an even footing with DirectX, it just takes the vendors a while to get around to it.

[EFI]

Oops, missed that one. My bad, missed that indirect reference Yes, at this point I do tire easily trying to figure out WTF EFI is talking about. One mistake, yes feel free jump all over that! Enjoy! EFI's had very little opportunity afterall after a string of posts ranging from ill-informed to imbecilic. *thumbs up* Of course I STILL wouldn't have actually have changed the "slideshow" tag. An average of 20FPS is crappy. Actually 30FPS is crappy, 20FPS is very crapy. Studdering becomes pronounced for even the tolerant at around 16FPS and an average of 20FPS typically means dropping well into single digits. So yeah, that's fits the slang "slideshow" for me (hey, it be slang ). Interspersed with some periods of actual motion though it may be. Apparently it was enough that EFI didn't notice the shadows (or didn't actually get to that part of the demo) and the water effects (the latter of which seem to be much more evident in motion). Or EFI's an idoit. My money is on a little column A, a good portion of column B. But if full on idiot is his choice so then so be it!

 

Of course the head-to-head benchmarking I've seen so far (haven't bothered to do it myself) has the difference between DX9 and DX10 at a couple % points or so, +/-, as opposed to %30 lower for DX10, methinks something else could be going on there...perhaps biological input error or some other factor. Of course they, FiringSquad, tested a run through of the Medical Center (one of the more intensive sections) and some of their other numbers look a bit suspect (they are reporting much lower 2900XT numbers than I'm and many others are seeing, there might have been PCI-e issues I've seen others mention, or they didn't have the required hotfix in, not sure). They also didn't bother test with the 8600/2600 cards. I'm going to take a shot in the dark that it wasn't a priority for them to test with those because it's been very obvious for some time that those cards are going to be {censored} for gaming on new games that aren't using DX10 for speed optimizations instead of adding eye-candy.Meaning yes, Macs are a poor choice for a gaming machine for someone interested in playing games (that aren't years old, or run in a mode that they look dated).

 

Unless they've got the cash to drop on a Mac Pro and plus the cash to drop on a second video card that only gets used when they aren't booting OSX. Which of course someone unwilling to try make a living banking on that particular market segment is just "lazy". Of course EFI could stop being "lazy" and go write a game. He certainly feels highly knowledgable in the matter of all things graphic, shouldn't be a problem. Right? *cough*

 

Actually it adds much more. Although the games released so far are implementing it all (up until Bioshock the DX10 enabled releases have been ports to PC, ick). But even Bioshock does add more than just particles. There are the water effects (hard to screenshot that) and improvements on shadows (check around, there are some of those on the net, the baby carriage scene is one where it is very pronounced). Plus I, at least, finde the difference in the particle effects quite dramatic, which is why I guess they get the attentions.

 

Yeah, it isn't so much crippled as they just don't bother implement it themselves. However the hooks are there for vendors to write it on an even footing with DirectX, it just takes the vendors a while to get around to it.

 

 

You just don't get it do you...

 

Your 2900 XT will not last a chance once Crysis comes along November 19th...so I'm not (according to my beliefs) the one who's going to be an idiot, and blow another 500$ on a video card, just for gaming....and god knows how much you spent on your PC itself. I'd rather play on a console, like the 360, PS3, or the Wii...where 600$ max (PS3), would get you excellent playable frames no matter WHAT game you play that is designed for that console. Have you seen Bioshock for the 360? graphically it looks no different than the PC version.

 

So if your the idiot who likes to blow money like that, then so be it, not my problelm...but I would rather control what I spend, and spend it on something more useful and valuable than a $500 video card.....which will become obsolete in 6 months or less.

 

An average of 20fps is crappy, yes, but an Average of 20fps on a LAPTOP video card on a game that intensive on a laptop that is 1" thin...is not crappy...it's actually pretty good. By the f*****g way, I can play Bioshock at 70fps if I want to...all I have to do is turn off the advanced shaders...and I can play that while playing at med-high resolutions, such as 1184 x X (I cant remember the exact vertical res).

 

Like I said...we'll just see how happygogamer you are once Crysis kills the living shaders off your 2900 XT. Then we'll see who's laughing at who, for spending so much on a single piece of hardware. Loser.

[Dwight F]

You just don't get it do you...

That you don't have a sniff, you just never will, and you will continue to demonstrate such inspite of just how much of a fool you look like? Maybe. *shrug* Call it a weakness but my hope hasn't yet died.

Your 2900 XT will not last a chance once Crysis comes along November 19th...

This I'm going to tuck away, should be quite a choice little quote to chew on in a few months.

so I'm not (according to my beliefs) the one who's going to be an idiot, and blow another 500$ on a video card, just for gaming....

According to your beliefs all sorts of bizzare {censored} has occured/is occuring/will occur.

and god knows how much you spent on your PC itself.

Besides the coolio stainless steel sever case? Less than the Mini Mac. *shrug* How's that compare to the MBP?

I'd rather play on a console, like the 360, PS3, or the Wii...where 600$ max (PS3), would get you excellent playable frames no matter WHAT game you play that is designed for that console.

Not exactly "excellent" but usually passable. But they are different games. They used to be a lot different until some lines of PC games started getting the console gimp treatment. But how exactly does that make the Mac a good platform to develop games on? I suppose trying to deflect the by changing the subject is one way to handle getting a fact enima and looking like a fcuking idiot. Another is to just STFU. But that apparently the later isn't your style.

Have you seen Bioshock for the 360? graphically it looks no different than the PC version.

Yes, because you have shown yourself to be extremely accurate and adept in noticing differences.

So if your the idiot who likes to blow money like that, then so be it, not my problelm...but I would rather control what I spend, and spend it on something more useful and valuable than a $500 video card.....which will become obsolete in 6 months or less.

Well I didn't actually pay $500, a good measure less that. Tax deduction too, which means it 'cost' a good deal less than that Wii. Didn't ask but I'm pretty sure my accountant would say 'no' to me claiming the later on my income tax. Plus I got some games and other goodies tossed in, I'm looking forward to this bad boy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Fortress_2 in particular. And of course the card isn't going to be "obsolete" in a couple of months. In a year will it run the absolute most eye-candy on the biggest LCD at "acceptable" FPS? Nah, I'm not sure it would do that down on a 2560x1600 screen (that's more Ultra 8800 territory). But good enough and ahead of the curve enough that I could eBay it and maybe even recover my ful costs. I don't plan to though, I'll just OC it (apparently they are good cards for that) and run it till it gives up. Or give the whole machine to my older son.

An average of 20fps is crappy, yes, but an Average of 20fps on a LAPTOP video card on a game that intensive on a laptop that is 1" thin...is not crappy...it's actually pretty good.

It is still crappy for playing, and isn't that the relavent part? And the iMac isn't going to be faster. It'll actually be a lot slower running at it's LCD's native resolution. Ergo the majority of Macs sold, the whole of which constitutes a small percentage of PC sales, are for {censored} for contemporary gaming right out of the box. The remaining minority of the high price tage Mac Pros are only somewhat lagging in video tech, though not nearly to the same extent. Making Macs a very poor market for game developers.

By the f*****g way, I can play Bioshock at 70fps if I want to...all I have to do is turn off the advanced shaders...and I can play that while playing at med-high resolutions, such as 1184 x X (I cant remember the exact vertical res).

...falling into the category of looking dated.

Like I said...we'll just see how happygogamer you are once Crysis kills the living shaders off your 2900 XT. Then we'll see who's laughing at who, for spending so much on a single piece of hardware. Loser.

Oooo, that stings. Or not. Yes, let us see what we shall see. Well I will see, you'll be busy not being "lazy" showing all those professional game developers how to do it! Now please go do that. You'll still look like a fool but at least you'll be a quiet one.

[EFI]

I wouldn't though, I'll just OC it (apparently they are good cards for that) and run it till it gives up.

 

What a hypocrite. How is that any different from what you would do on a Mac Pro? Looks like you'll also be sticking with "yesterdays" hardware tomorrow.

 

Are you hearing yourself? Are you f***ing hearing yourself? You re-direct every attempt of not admitting that Macs can play games well too....to gaming on OS X, and saying all the dumb reasons for OS X not being a gaming OS....when I freaking explained to you why that was so.

 

You're unbelievable...that's all, unbelievably ignorant, that is. BS about your entire system costing less than a mini...your GPU + Processor itself would have cost more than the mini...so I clearly have no idea where your pulling this from.

 

Game developers don't create games that will have the "best experience" on an 8800GTX's in SLI being powered by an X6800 with dual Corsair Dominator sticks. They create games that appeal to a vast configuration of hardware. There are FAR more configurations in the PC arena that have much, much crappier specs than what Apple offers. It's just that Apple doesn't stoop that low. If you are going to compare a Mac...compare it with a :censored2: store bought PC.

 

Meh, it's clear I'm wasting my time with yet another Windows fool (I like Windows users...who don't talk out out of their ass and actually see facts as they are and judge reality properly). Whatever...it's clear you have an ignorant mindset, and I'm not going to waste my time on this thread...

 

I'm done.

[Dwight F]

What a hypocrite. How is that any different from what you would do on a Mac Pro? Looks like you'll also be sticking with "yesterdays" hardware tomorrow.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I'll be running on "old" hardware but I'll still be ahead of the new iMacs of that time. And it isn't about me but about the collective. Talk about lacking the ability to wrap your head around something. It is a constantly moving forward wave of people buying cards/computers.

Are you hearing yourself? Are you f***ing hearing yourself? You re-direct every attempt of not admitting that Macs can play games well too....to gaming on OS X, and saying all the dumb reasons for OS X not being a gaming OS....when I freaking explained to you why that was so.

Redirect? Damn, you are pushing so hard to redirect you seem to have forgotten WTF we were talking about. OSX is a bad platform to target video games for to have commercial success [read: have food to eat]. Although the highest volume "sure bets" like Doom 3 have ventured in with ports. Now we are here in the discussion at the moment because you got your azz handed to you arguing there and figured you could try to argue that running Windows made Macs a viable gaming platform. But fact is Macs as a whole are at a hardware disadvantage, including the Intel based ones running Windows. Brand new, newly refreshed models are already behind the curve.

You're unbelievable...that's all, unbelievably ignorant, that is. BS about your entire system costing less than a mini...

Huh? I was talking about the computer separate from that the 2900XT. ? I bought them separately, it looked like you were talking about them separately. *shrug* Oh, and the GPU + Processor (AMD 5600+) was less than a bare bones bottom line Mini (not by much, but it was). Not that I've gotten that Mini model, have higher requirements than that.

Game developers don't create games that will have the "best experience" on an 8800GTX's in SLI being powered by an X6800 with dual Corsair Dominator sticks. They create games that appeal to a vast configuration of hardware. There are FAR more configurations in the PC arena that have much, much crappier specs than what Apple offers. It's just that Apple doesn't stoop that low. If you are going to compare a Mac...compare it with a :censored2: store bought PC.

Once again you are churning bull that has already been dealt with. "Store bought" PCs come with 8800GTXs. That's a great place to start getting your thick head around. Not that it even matters since add-in cards are "store bought" too. And yes there are very low-end computers that are out there, but there just aren't any non-Mac Pros that are ahead of the curve (and the Mac Pros even lag the leaders) so they are low-end marginal gaming machines at best, and go down from there. Which makes it pretty damn bleak aiming at a Mac that is a year old or older. EDIT: Or well less than a year if the model wasn't a recent refresh at the time of purchase. If you had bought the Oct 2006 MBP just a few months ago, in the last month they were on sale new and direct from Apple, you sure wouldn't be playing Bioshock in any meaningful way. Even if you hack the video to have it run at stock x1600 clock speed, rather than the underclock Apple ships it at, Bioshock will bring it to it's knees (from reports of people attempting to play on x1600 cards).

 

Yes game developers try to keep the mimimum down, and they aim to keep the core of "gamer" machines able to play. Not the majority of PCs [as they were intially sold] mind you, because there are so many POS with integrated mobo (3D games just aren't made to run on very best integrated video available circa the software's release). But game developers regularly aim for their game to take advantage of hardware higher than current norm at the time of release, hell it's not uncommon for them to aim higher than the top-end! Let's just toss that on the big pile of things you don't know, and seem unlikely to ever since you are demonstrating the memory retension of a gnat, OK?

I'm done.

Yeah, you were done before you even started. You just didn't know it. You still don't.

[~pcwiz]

I say Form and Function. They look good...no doubt about that and the function, heres the obvious: Why would people want to run OSx86 on their PCs if OS X didn't have function? Does everyone think that OSx86 will make their ugly Dell look prettier? Just answer the obvious people....This topic isn't even needed really.

[Numberzz]

I say Form and Function. They look good...no doubt about that and the function, heres the obvious: Why would people want to run OSx86 on their PCs if OS X didn't have function? Does everyone think that OSx86 will make their ugly Dell look prettier? Just answer the obvious people....This topic isn't even needed really.

hey, whats wrong with u, this topic is about mac gaming. oh {censored} thats right! this is about apple form vs function silly me. now both of u grow up and accept that u have different views on things i think this topic needs to get back on instead of u 2 arguing about games.

[Headrush69]

hey, whats wrong with u, this topic is about mac gaming. oh {censored} thats right! this is about apple form vs function silly me. now both of u grow up and accept that u have different views on things i think this topic needs to get back on instead of u 2 arguing about games.

Oh come on, I'm enjoying watching it. (Although it looks done)

 

I posted several questions about form vs. function in my last post but no one seems interested anymore.

The thread is what it is.

[Yami Bakura]

Macs are good in both form and function.

[cadeshi]

1. its all about the word "DESIGN" which in fact means: form for function (!) not form is better for your eyes or this thing looks so cool (which would sound for a proffessional designer like a wery childish and amateur words ). If your form is hard to operate or has some unsued or misused of confusinf parts than it means that the FORM is BAD! Ughly if u wish so. In other way if your device has esthetically nice parts like buttons and cery slim LCD or glossy or allum case etc. it does`n nessessarily mean that this device is GOOD, no! because it could be slow buggy and even dangerous inside! in either combination it only means that the DESIGN is BAD!

 

2.I had to decide which laptop to buy form my production needs (3D or video post prod.) so I started to ask people who already had either Mac or "PC" (i completely do not agree with such definition of the Windows platform) and by the end understood that all the people who didn`t know more about comps than just the name of processor (which is usually written on the case) and the 2GB of RAM (which they think is the most important part!! but never know how it would differ from 160GB of HDD ) own or really would wish to-MAC! And in other hand usually all the people who can do something with drivers and install new videocard to their comp use... guess what Windows or rearly Linux. Y? cause 1.price, 2.they really would like to tweak it. 3. Mac is boring!!!! (the device) especially iMac.

 

3.I bought HP nw9440 mobile workstation, Y?

a)hardware far more powerfull than on the best MBP for that time (even now there`s no really equal match in that market)

b)7200rpm HDD (which usually is the mesure of speed of comp)

c)Quadro 1500m 512mb GDDR3(can u find the match for it in apple world )

d)1920x1200 screen resolution

e)7in1 card reader

d)finger print security

e) and by final all that for only $2200 with RAM 2gig version

 

4.Is MacOS good OS? in 95% YES its GREAT! IS Windows BAD OS? No in 90% it`s NOT (it won`t be fair if we`d just say that its {censored}, cause it`s not!)

Is MACOS better than WIN? Some ways it sure is, but in some ways it`s childish and stupid, and I could really say the same about Win.

 

5.MBP has 1 (I cannot believe they still have it that way), only 1 button on the tochpad!!!!!!!!! 2007 people we have 5 fingers! Y? and that`s when it`s 2x larger than mine

 

PS. Mighty mouse is a best example of when form screws up functionality, I really hate that mouse for the way u have to use it, i mean lifting one finger to make it accept another... and the price... even Logitech`s best mice are comparably priced! and surely they are faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar better

[SDRacer48]

Apple computers are beautiful - there's little denying that. But what happens when appearance and function collide?

 

Sometimes they compliment each other. When designing the iPod, the form-factor was largely dictated by the size of the hard drive.

 

However, there have been many cases in which Apple's design team faced significant challenges in balancing aesthetics and power. One such example from the vast archives at folklore.org:

We started having weekly management meetings in June 1981, which were attended by most of the team, where we discussed the issues of the week. At the second or third meeting, Burrell presented an intricate blueprint of the PC board layout, which had already been used to build a few working prototypes, blown up to four times the actual size.

 

Steve started critiquing the layout on a purely esthetic basis. "That part's really pretty", he proclaimed. "But look at the memory chips. That's ugly. The lines are too close together".

 

George Crow, our recently hired analog engineer, interrupted Steve. "Who cares what the PC board looks like? The only thing that's important is how well that it works. Nobody is going to see the PC board."

 

Steve responded strongly. "I'm gonna see it! I want it to be as beautiful as possible, even if it's inside the box. A great carpenter isn't going to use lousy wood for the back of a cabinet, even though nobody's going to see it."

 

George started to argue with Steve, since he wasn't on the team long enough to know that it was a losing battle. Fortunately, Burrell interrupted him.

 

"Well, that was a difficult part to layout because of the memory bus.", Burrell responded. "If we change it, it might not work as well electrically".

 

"OK, I'll tell you what," said Steve. "Let's do another layout to make the board prettier, but if it doesn't work as well, we'll change it back."

 

So we invested another $5,000 or so to make a few boards with a new layout that routed the memory bus in a Steve-approved fashion. But sure enough, the new boards didn't work properly, as Burrell had predicted, so we switched back to the old design for the next run of prototypes.

The Great Debate is this: which should be sacrificed first, form or function? Does Apple worry too much about looks? Do other companies (Dell, etc) worry about looks too little?

 

In the case of the MacBook Air. Form completely kicked function's butt.

 

This is not a good thing. Productivity, Accessibility, and Usability should always come before "WOW! That's Pretty!".

[Ongeloof]

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

 

That's all I'm gonna say.

Sock it to 'um

 

Think Mark

[pyrates]

Sock it to 'um

 

Think Mark

 

If you're gonna go for form even a little bit, you are gonna have to sacrifice performance. I'd rather not do that. Besides, I can get sli equipped laptops. Apple just isn't serious about going after the gaming market.

[qbattersby]

That's a pretty wild laptop although I am not a fan of the whole laptop gaming.

[S.SubZero]

If you're gonna go for form even a little bit, you are gonna have to sacrifice performance. I'd rather not do that. Besides, I can get sli equipped laptops. Apple just isn't serious about going after the gaming market.

You don't even need that much.

http://www.sagernotebook.com/product_customed.php?pid=29186

 

The 8800M GTX looks like a crazy GPU.

http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3155&p=4

 

A single 8800M GTX beats 8700M in SLI. (Sager does have an SLI 8800M too.. jeez)

 

The sucky thing about the 8600 and 8700 is the 128-bit memory bus. They are beat even by a 7950GTX Go. This echoes the desktop 8600's vs. 7950GT's. The sad thing is you can't get a Macbook that doesn't have one of these crippled cards in it (or worse, the 8400 is 64-bit).

 

My 8800M'd Sager 5792 (with Penryn, another thing Macs lack) should be here next week. Woohoo!

[Gabotron]

I think there are ways for both to exist at once. There are some mad skilled people out there modding computers, and pretty beasty ones at that, and some are gorgeous. However, at all time when money is involved, function should be the deciding factor.

 

This week end I've been pissed all over the floor after a friend told me he was thinking about replacing his current and perfectly working Mac keyboard by one that is slimmer and better looking. This all seems a huge waste, but I guess you only have marketing to blame for that.

[fryke]

The new alu keyboard *is* really great. It's not simply design/marketing either. I've switched my wireless white Apple keyboard for a wired alu keyboard and haven't looked back.

[Gabotron]

What is it then? What justifies the cost if it ain't design/marketing?

[fryke]

Read the thread's subject. It's that the design follows the function here. See: When you see people buying cushions for their palms when using computer keyboards, you kinda have to agree that the keyboard probably is too thick for comfortable and healthy use. So you lower it until you don't actually need the cushion anymore. That's what Apple has done. The keyboard feels very good for hours of typing. It's simply a much better keyboard which *happens* to also look much better. Making it slim was a function-decision. And then it, well, looked good as well.

[pyrates]

...and haven't looked back.

 

Is it just me or do apple users say that a lot?

[Mr. Harrison]

I'm more worried about the way the form translates into function. I have a borderline ugly eMachines case (W2260 to be exact), and it certainly doesn't resemble a lamp, cube suspended in midair, or a tupperware container, but it is a basic case with that is easily serviceable. It used a standard MicroATX motherboard that was easily replaceable with a new store-bought one. If it was a MacMini, I would probably have to take it to the Apple Store to get a new miniscule motherboard put in that is probably available nowhere else. So even though by box is ugly and bulky, it is overall more functional because of its form.

[InorganicMatter]

Macs are good in both form and function.

 

Agreed. Leopard has the perfect balance; Tiger was lacking just a bit too much in the function department.

 

In the case of the MacBook Air. Form completely kicked function's butt.

 

This is not a good thing. Productivity, Accessibility, and Usability should always come before "WOW! That's Pretty!".

 

The MacBook Air is all about portability, nothing more. That's all that matters. It's not for heavy work, and it's not for gaming. It's for an ultraportabl Mac. And Apple's not afraid to admit that.

 

If you're gonna go for form even a little bit, you are gonna have to sacrifice performance. I'd rather not do that. Besides, I can get sli equipped laptops. Apple just isn't serious about going after the gaming market.

 

They don't have to be serious about the gaming market for two reasons: it's extraordinarily small, and PC gaming is going the way of the dinosaur. Attacking a small market that's about to dissapear is just stupid.

[pyrates]

Agreed. Leopard has the perfect balance; Tiger was lacking just a bit too much in the function department.

 

So the 300 new features that Apple was toting is supposed to be less now? I thought more features always won over less features but not according to mac users apparently.

 

The MacBook Air is all about portability, nothing more. That's all that matters. It's not for heavy work, and it's not for gaming. It's for an ultraportabl Mac. And Apple's not afraid to admit that.

 

When Apple has been asked about what market that macbook air has been made for, and people complain about its lack of features compared to the better value for the money macbook and macbook pro; they say then it's not for you. They never actually answer the question. You seem to try to because it's making them look bad. But the latest complaint is that you can't plug in the smallest evdo usb device because of the design of the macbook air. Instead you gotta have an ugly usb cable sticking out from the macbook air to plug in the evdo usb device, which is not what a lot of mac users would want. This is the same thing as Apple choosing to recess the headphone port on the iphone because of design decisions solely and not for any technical reason.

 

They don't have to be serious about the gaming market for two reasons: it's extraordinarily small, and PC gaming is going the way of the dinosaur. Attacking a small market that's about to dissapear is just stupid.

 

Apple can't compete in the PC Gaming Market because they're not willing to. They have too much focus on design and not enough on performance, which is what PC Gamers expect. They spend a lot of money on hardware and games and whatever they can get for the amount of money they're willing to spend, whether it looks pretty or ugly, they will get it.

 

But it won't be disappearing anytime soon. It is where the cutting edge is and it drives the high end video card industry, which consists of nvidia and ati mainly with other competitors. Consoles will only have the upper hand when they are first released, but soon are surpassed by any high end gaming PC. Apple is not willing to create a true desktop mac that will work with any video card because Apple insists on developing all the drivers themselves instead of letting the hardware makers do it which is what is needed for these high end gaming video cards, and that uses desktop cpu's and desktop ram. That is also why we have never seen a Mac that uses the q6600 cpu because it doesn't exist as a laptop cpu. And this is exactly the sort of thing PC Gamers demand. You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't make it false.

[apowerr]

They don't have to be serious about the gaming market for two reasons: it's extraordinarily small, and PC gaming is going the way of the dinosaur. Attacking a small market that's about to dissapear is just stupid.

But it won't be disappearing anytime soon. It is where the cutting edge is and it drives the high end video card industry, which consists of nvidia and ati mainly with other competitors. Consoles will only have the upper hand when they are first released, but soon are surpassed by any high end gaming PC. Apple is not willing to create a true desktop mac that will work with any video card because Apple insists on developing all the drivers themselves instead of letting the hardware makers do it which is what is needed for these high end gaming video cards, and that uses desktop cpu's and desktop ram. That is also why we have never seen a Mac that uses the q6600 cpu because it doesn't exist as a laptop cpu. And this is exactly the sort of thing PC Gamers demand. You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't make it false.

QFE.

PC gaming going away? What? All of the coolest, best performing PCs I have ever seen have been gaming PCs. Console gaming will never replace PC gaming, the best performance on games is always on the PC version. I own an Xbox 360. Lets consider Oblivion for example, it's available for Xbox and PC. I purchased it for PC because:

A) Higher resolution

B ) Higher graphics settings (texture size, AA, AF, HDR etc)

C) Patches (patches on PCs always tend to be better than their console counterparts)

D) Mods (In a game like Oblivion, mods are fantastic)

 

The same is the case with Bioshock, and every other game that has been released for console and PC. Consoles don't deliver on performance the same way PCs do. Plus, In my opinion and the opinions of many others, the keyboard+mouse is a superior control scheme to a gamepad.

 

Oh, and consoles suck for multiplayer too. 12 vs 12 (maybe 16 vs 16) in FPS's sucks (depending on the game, some are geared for that) compared to 32 vs 32. And the MMORPG market, which happens to be huge, is going to remain primarily PC based.

[vbetts]

Bioshock actually has been more reccomended to run on a 360, Bioshock isn't that terribly hard on computers, but you can set Bioshock to run on the 360 with vertical refresh and run at 30 fps, or set that off and Bioshock stays at a cool 60 fps. The UE3 was made for consoles practically.