4

12/1/2007 2:08:39 PM

^^Although if you read the post right before his, the question was in regard to gaming. The response was also intended to apply to gaming. I simply stated that no, you could not get the same potential from a mac as you would a PC in regard to gaming performance. We weren't speaking simply in terms of whether or not it will run windows at full speed. We were speaking in terms of how games would do on mac hardware.

So yes my statement was correct. For GAMING a mac can not run windows at the same speed as a pc because of hardware limitations.

To simplify things i'll repost the convo.

Rat:

Quote :

"ok, so I've been hearing a lot about how good macs are and I've thought about getting one (macbook pro) problem: i'm a gamer convince me still to get a mac please. srsly"

Agentlion:

Quote :

"^^ easy. I'll give you 3 reasons http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bootcamp.html http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/ http://www.parallels.com/en/products/desktop/ With the Intel chips, there is virtually no reason not to get a Mac. It can and will run Windows at full speed. http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136649-page,3-c,notebooks/article.html Quote : "The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year is a Mac. Try that again: The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year--or for that matter, ever--is a Mac. Not a Dell, not a Toshiba, not even an Alienware. The $2419 (plus the price of a copy of Windows Vista, of course) MacBook Pro's PC WorldBench 6 Beta 2 score of 88 beats Gateway's E-265M by a single point, but the MacBook's score is far more impressive simply because Apple couldn't care less whether you run Windows.""

Now in my opinion it seems like agentlion was responding to Rat and his question about gaming, which would make my argument VERY valid because hardware plays a very important role in gaming. Not just whether two sets of hardware wil run an OS at full speed. So my response explained that Apple does not currently provide top of the line video cards to enable this type of gaming, and he'd be better just building a pc and getting newer, faster components for cheaper. I mean Apple does not intend for games to be played on windows on thier computers, so why would they include top of the line video cards? Duh. And until apple decides to switch thier focus to gaming, they won't be putting gaming video cards in thier computers.

Quote :

"If you think you're a big enough nerd that you need to build yourself a computer and upgrade the graphics card every week, then you do what you have to do. But for general use for general people, the Mac's hardware will run OS X as well as Windows at perfectly acceptable speeds."

But see you're missing the whole point. The question was in regard to gaming. Plus no one upgrades video cards "every week". The cycles on these cards are years. For example if you bought an 8800gtx when they came out, they'd be great cards for playing games for the next 2-3 years. Shall i mention how long the ati 9700 pro series lasted?

I mean come on, atleast address the conversation. He DID NOT ask about "general use". Rat asked about GAMING! To say that "for general use" a mac will run Windows at perfectly acceptable speeds is silly. What does that mean? Define "general use"? Someones general use might be gaming, or cad, or rendering, etc etc. You have to specify.

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 3:58 PM. Reason : ..]

12/1/2007 3:46:07 PM

general use typically means email, web browsing, non-intensive spreadsheet work, and word processing

don't even pretend like CAD or rendering (!!!) is general usage. it may be for a very NON general type of person, but that don't make it so GENERALLY speaking

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 7:13 PM. Reason : s]

12/1/2007 7:13:12 PM

^

12/1/2007 9:46:00 PM

basic photo and music work are now general use, too.

a very small minority of people use their computers for games that require a top notch graphics cards

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 10:29 PM. Reason : getting a job -> don't give a shit about games]

12/1/2007 10:22:17 PM

Just get one. Ask questions later.

12/1/2007 11:09:42 PM

^^ true too. And even advanced photowork with CS3 and Apeture or whatever is easily handled by Mac natively, virtual Windows on Mac, or Windows natively on a Mac.

It should be clear to anyone here that "general use" does not include any intensive 3-D work.

12/2/2007 8:44:35 AM

Quote :

"^^Although if you read the post right before his, the question was in regard to gaming. The response was also intended to apply to gaming. I simply stated that no, you could not get the same potential from a mac as you would a PC in regard to gaming performance. We weren't speaking simply in terms of whether or not it will run windows at full speed. We were speaking in terms of how games would do on mac hardware. "

In my reading, yes we were:

Quote :

" "With the Intel chips, there is virtually no reason not to get a Mac. It can and will run Windows at full speed. " And that's simply not true because of hardware limitations."

It will run Windows at full speed. It just depends on the hardware exactly what "full speed" is defined as.

Quote :

"So yes my statement was correct. For GAMING a mac can not run windows at the same speed as a pc because of hardware limitations. "

For GAMING a Mac runs at the exact same speed as a similarly configured Windows machine.

Here's what Rat should do:
Look at the available hardware on Apple's website.
Compare the available options to what he desires in order to play his games.
If the Apple machine is acceptable, then he should consider buying it. When he reboots in Windows, it will run at the same speed as a regular PC loaded with the same hardware.


No one said that a Mac laden with slow hardware will magically run faster than a PC with the same hardware. What was said is that the Apple machine will run just as fast under Windows as a Dell or Gateway or Whatever with the same hardware.
If the hardware is unacceptable, then he shouldn't buy a Mac.

12/2/2007 9:51:06 PM

but where do i find that simple GUI text editor (i want it bundled with the OS)

12/3/2007 8:32:16 AM

quit bitching and download one

12/3/2007 8:39:24 AM

i don't understand what you mean by "GUI Text editor"

TextEdit is included in Applications. It's basically like Windows Wordpad. And of course, there are countless downloadable ones - bbedit, TextMate, TextWrangler, SubEthaEdit, TextForge, etc

And if you install Developer Tools, that's included with the OS X disc, you will get all the Cocoa developer tools, including interface builders, icon builders, package builders, and of course, editors

12/3/2007 9:09:36 AM

Use Coda

12/3/2007 7:50:20 PM

what's the cheapest apple laptop = $1099 = on sale = $999 (w/ student discount)
what's the cheapest PC laptop = $450 = on sale = $300

that's all the discussion i need, i'm never gonna game on a laptop anyhow

12/3/2007 7:55:10 PM

^^i use coda for my freelance stuff and now at work. I love it! of course it cost me $70 but its well worth it.

Zen Studios is still far better but also more expensive.

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 8:03 PM. Reason : oops typo! good catch dakota took me a second to figure out WTF i was trying to say lol]

12/3/2007 8:01:11 PM

Quote :

"of cost it cost me $70"

hardcore apple right there

12/3/2007 8:02:15 PM

Textmate is awesome...

12/3/2007 8:05:37 PM

Quote :

"what's the cheapest PC laptop = $450 = on sale = $300"

so for you, cheap = good, at all costs...... build quality, service, support, etc mean nothing to you? ok then, whatever makes you happy.

Of course, it's funny that when people make PC to Mac comparisons, they usually leave out the most important factor, which is not quantifiable: using Mac OS X instead of Windows

12/3/2007 8:45:50 PM

ZING!

12/3/2007 10:22:28 PM

^^some people just really dislike OS X. It might not work for them, or it might not be compatible with what they're doing. So if they're offered a laptop for 400$+ cheaper, and with an OS they like better, then it's silly to go any other way.

Personally i don't mind Leopard, and it's alright for doing a couple things. But it just becomes a hassle when i want to play games, or work on cad, or do anything that won't run in OSX. So maybe it's more the constant reboots that is annoying rather than the actual OS. I'd rather just stick with Vista then try to reboot everytime i want to do anything. I mean if i'm chatting on leopard, or writing a word doc, then decide to finish up a cad drawing or play a game, that involves rebooting into Vista. It's just a big hassle. It's more about what fits the individual need of the person.

I've used both macs and pcs my whole life through school and various jobs, and i'm always more productive in Windows. It makes sense to me, and i can organize everything better. Everything just seems slow and sluggish in OSX when i'm trying to get things done. It just boils down to what works better, and what feels better. I don't think you can convince someone either way until they actually use both for an extended period of time.

12/3/2007 10:43:19 PM

Quote :

"so for you, cheap = good, at all costs...... build quality, service, support, etc mean nothing to you? ok then, whatever makes you happy."

some things are overrated, such as build quality, service, support, they are not worth 200% times the cost of the hardware, no where EVEN CLOSE!... it's not like these things are absent from the manufacturer, heck i have a laptop that would retail at $750, it just happened to be on a really good sale

i'm sorry but the build quality of an apple is not 3x as good as my laptop, nor is the service 3x as good, nor is the support 3x as good.

face it, the price of an apple is because of good design and popularity

people don't buy apple b/c of build quality, service, or support, they buy it for the pretty looks, simple interface and it's popularity

[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 12:11 AM. Reason : .]

12/4/2007 12:08:48 AM

Quote :

"face it, the price of an apple is because of good design and popularity"

it's been shown time and time again over the past 1.5 years that current prices for MacBooks, MacBook Pros and iMacs are the same and sometimes lower than a comparably equipped PC. Apple doesn't do bargain-basement computers, though, so you're right that if you want to get by with spending <$600 then PC is the only way to go. But the parts in those PCs are not only lower in quality and and design, they are simply lower speed and powered components than the low-end Macs.

and I find it funny that "popularity" is now used as a reason for buying a Mac, often by the same people deriding Mac for its low market share.

12/4/2007 7:20:46 AM

Those comparisons always take software into account. As if iWorks means a Mac user doesn't need to buy Office.

Heck, if sub-par productivity applications are accepted into the debate, then it should be the entire open source suite v. bundled mac iSoftware.

Or they try to factor in "cost over the lifetime of the product," as if troubleshooting my PC costs me any money.


Or some other stupid tactic that involves something other than a straight up hardware comparison.

12/4/2007 7:52:44 AM

i just picked up a Lenovo:

2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo / 4MB Cache
100GB 7200 RPM HD
3GB DDR2 667MHz RAM
ATI Mobility 1400 128 MB graphics card
Windows XP Pro

for $800 with a sale including tax and shipping. (bought 1 2GB stick from new egg outside of IBM purchase) + a company discount that stacked with it. Could have got it for cheaper if it wasnt Lenovo but I like their laptops. Besides the graphics card (which should be plenty good enough to play stuff on medium settings i hope - and I have a gaming desktop already anyways) I dont think the lowest apple laptop will be outperforming that at all and i saved a couple hundred bucks.

12/4/2007 8:04:58 AM

Quote :

"Those comparisons always take software into account. As if iWorks means a Mac user doesn't need to buy Office. Heck, if sub-par productivity applications are accepted into the debate, then it should be the entire open source suite v. bundled mac iSoftware. Or they try to factor in "cost over the lifetime of the product," as if troubleshooting my PC costs me any money. Or some other stupid tactic that involves something other than a straight up hardware comparison."

no, none of that is true at all. Soon after the Intel macs came out, there were many direct comparisons using the same or equivalent hardware, and in many cases, like Macbook vs. Dell Inspiron or iMac vs. Dell Optiplex or something, Apple came out the same or lower. I've linked to those comparisons several times already, but can't find those links at the moment.

What I can say, however, w/r/t to ^, is that I haven't seen a comparison like that in the past year. Most of the comparisons happened between the introduction of the Intel macs through the end of 2006. I don’t think I've seen one in 2007, and it is very likely that the PC makers have been more aggressive over the past year in lowering their prices.

12/4/2007 8:24:09 AM

actually, heres a hardware-to-hardware comparison done in June 2007
(link to full analysis in this article)
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/06/08/mac-vs-pc-prices

it says what i've basically been saying: if you start with a Mac, and build up a comparably equipped PC, then they will be nearly the same price - sometimes higher, sometimes lower. But if you start with an ultra cheap PC, there is simply no comparable Apple product

12/4/2007 8:34:37 AM

that price he is quoting the pc laptop is utterly insane considering i almost pulled the trigger on an HP laptop just this week that was easily comparable to the macbook pro they quoted in that article for a lot less. they stated the macbook pro specs were:

Glossy 17-in. screen with 1,680-by-1,050-pixel resolution (optional 1,920-by-1,200 resolution for $100 more)
2.4-GHz Core 2 Duo processor
2GB of RAM (upgradeable to 4GB)
256MB Nvidia GeForce 8600M GT video
160GB 5,400-rpm SATA hard drive
8x SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Gigabit Ethernet port
54Mbit/sec. a/b/g/Draft n Wi-Fi
Bluetooth 2.0+EDR, ExpressCard/34 card slot
Three USB ports
One FireWire 800 port
One FireWire 400 port
DVI port
Built-in iSight video camera
One-year warranty (upgradeable to three years)

and then said Dell was going to cost them 3500 dollars.

$1040 after instant savings from HP this past week got you:

Glossy 15.4" screen
2.4-GHz Core 2 Duo processor
2GB of RAM (upgradeable to 4GB)
256MB graphics card
250 GB 5,400-rpm SATA hard drive
HD DVD ROM with SuperMulti DVD+/-R/RW Double Layer
Gigabit Ethernet port
Intel(R) PRO/Wireless 3945ABG Network Connection
not sure about the USB/firewire ports tho im sure it has a comparable number
12 cell li-ion battery

thats all i can remember that i can compare.

12/4/2007 9:05:00 AM

Quote :

"Those comparisons always take software into account. As if iWorks means a Mac user doesn't need to buy Office. Heck, if sub-par productivity applications are accepted into the debate, then it should be the entire open source suite v. bundled mac iSoftware. Or they try to factor in "cost over the lifetime of the product," as if troubleshooting my PC costs me any money. Or some other stupid tactic that involves something other than a straight up hardware comparison."

its funny how people like you use themselves as comparisons when the vast majority don't know what open source means. You don't need office because you can still open .doc, .xls on a mac without office. You don't even need iWork. Besides, iWork isn't even bundled with mac's. A free trial of iwork and a free trial of office are included. but iWork doesn't cost $texas like non-student copies of office.

No matter how you try and argue it, a Mac is a better value than a PC.

12/4/2007 9:25:12 AM

Quote :

"ATI Mobility 1400 128 MB graphics card"

they still put that crap in notebooks?

12/4/2007 9:27:48 AM

yea and it runs fine too. friend has one down here and can play CoD 4 on medium settings on a similar laptop as mine...

and considering i wont be gaming on this laptop thats more than enough video power for me


[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 9:50 AM. Reason : ]

12/4/2007 9:49:07 AM

Quote :

"and I find it funny that "popularity" is now used as a reason for buying a Mac, often by the same people deriding Mac for its low market share."

low market share does not mean it's not popular among a specific group of people, only apple is dictating how much of a market share they want, and price is one of the largest reasons why that market share stays where it's at.

12/4/2007 10:15:55 AM

Quote :

"they still put that crap in notebooks?"

They still put 7300's in desktops?

Quote :

"if you start with a Mac, and build up a comparably equipped PC, then they will be nearly the same price - sometimes higher, sometimes lower. But if you start with an ultra cheap PC, there is simply no comparable Apple product"

That article's another example of skewed pro-Apple comparisons

A) The guy insists on absolute parity on not only hardware, but features as well.

It just so happened that there wasn't really a comparable high-end Dell or Sony available at the time, so he compares the Apple's price to a fully pimped out Dell and calls it a win.


B) The guy's super keen on mentioning 3rd party alternatives to Apple's ridiculous memory and HD upgrade prices, yet doesn't extend the favor to PCs. First off, you can do the same exact thing with PCs.

Secondly, if he's willing to include options other than full MSRP, why doesn't he mention the fact that you'd have to be a sucker to pay full MSRP on a PC? Apple's very keen on keeping their prices fixed; why isn't that factored in? I'd love to see an Apple v. PC+coupon comparison.

12/6/2007 10:06:26 AM

Quote :

""they still put that crap in notebooks?""

Hahaha.

^Yeah, look whos talking. The stock GPU on the Mac Pro is a 7300GT, which retails for bout 50$.

12/6/2007 5:05:12 PM