People's dream setup offers:
ATI Radeon HD 3850 standard
Nvidia TX 280 option
ATI Radeon HD 4870 option
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Biggest thing holding Apple back is the lack of games?
- Thread starter luffytubby
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
People's dream setup offers:
ATI Radeon HD 3850 standard
Nvidia TX 280 option
ATI Radeon HD 4870 option
Why those choices?
And what about processor types and clock speeds?
RAM types and amounts?
HD I guess would be some form of SATA drive, maybe 500 GB, 750 GB, and 1 TB?
Optical drives are a dime a dozen, so they could go on using the same ones they offer.
HD audio would be tricky.
Speakers? For me it would begin and end with Klipsch Promedia 5.1's.
That's not what was meant by disposable. Cheap PC laptops have more of a tendency to fail after a few years and need replacement - it's about hardware quality, not upgrade ability. Of course you can't upgrade a MacBook or an iMac. But it will certainly still be running years down the road.
This doesn't necessarily appeal to a gaming audience though, where up-to-date performance is more important, I suppose.
Is there a study on this or something? EVERYTHING is made in China these days, so what's the difference? I could have believed that 10-15 years ago when some companies were still making computers here (e.g. Apple) or even in Japan, but now what's the difference? They're all made in China or some other 3rd world Asian country.
You don't think they make different quality hardware? Wow.
I've had a number of cheap PC's with unbranded and cheap brand components that have all failed. Even our old AMD's were the first to go whilst even our Pentium 3 computer is still working. The same applies to disc media too - back in 1999 we bought a few unbranded CD's that were much less than the Memorex or Sony brands, all the backups with them have no failed. Whereas Memorex still seem to work (but have been replaced for safety).
Doesn't matter that "they all come from China". It depends on the factory, depends on how much testing goes on, depends on using cheaper materials...
I've had a number of cheap PC's with unbranded and cheap brand components that have all failed. Even our old AMD's were the first to go whilst even our Pentium 3 computer is still working. The same applies to disc media too - back in 1999 we bought a few unbranded CD's that were much less than the Memorex or Sony brands, all the backups with them have no failed. Whereas Memorex still seem to work (but have been replaced for safety).
Doesn't matter that "they all come from China". It depends on the factory, depends on how much testing goes on, depends on using cheaper materials...
Presumably Apple have made an intentional decision to make it impossible to upgrade their computers. The obvious reason is that they hope I will shell out another £800 in a few years time. 'Planned Obsolescence' is the phrase I believe. My news for Apple is that I will be buying a console for gaming!
I can only say in 27 years of computing (my first computer was a Vic-20), I've had one computer fail (an early model Commodore 64). I bought my first clone in 1999 (after reluctantly moving on from the Amiga platform once and for all after owning an Amiga 3000 for 8 years) and the motherboard was a fairly unremarkable "never heard of" brand that started with a 400Mhz Celeron and was later upgraded to a 1GHz PIII processor. I went through 3 graphics cards (tested and returned 2 others), two sound cards and added more hard drives, memory, etc. I took that computer apart last November after using it for almost 8 years. No problems what-so-ever with any of the hardware (Windows98 type crashes were another matter) I went through during that time, not even a bad power supply (on ANY of the computers since the Vic-20 save that one C64 which died from a static shock to one of the game ports, which fried an internal chip). I just built a new PC last November (after giving up on waiting for a faster video card for the MacPro) and over 8 months later, no issues what-so-ever.
WindowsXP is vastly more stable than Win98 ever was as well. While I still prefer MacOSX overall, WindowsXP by SP2 isn't half as bad as people make it out to be, save having to scan every so often for spyware and viruses as they are rampant on that platform. For gaming, there is no comparison. Windows wins hands down. MacOSX doesn't have the OS support or the GPU capability in enough machines, let alone the market share to compete right now. Things like Cider can help, but Apple needs to get their act together and release better GPUs for all their machines and seriously consider a mid-range gaming tower with the ability to choose and upgrade the GPU before anything is going to change on that platform. There's no point in a gaming company releasing a game for the Mac if 85% of the Macs out there don't have enough 3D power to run it. Really, there is no reason for the Mac platform to be so awful for gaming other than Steve Jobs not giving a crap and doing something about it, IMO.
You guys are nutjobs:
The Mac Pro is a professional workstation that means film & audio editing, encoding, processing, manipulation etc etc. That means running apps like photoshop, lightroom, aperture, motion, Autodesk Maya, Bryce 3D. Usually you don't need to overclock your graphics card by 500Mhz or whatnot to get photoshop running
and there aren't lolcats going around stealing tha mhz from your 8800GT. The 8800GT is a very nice card in terms of price, performance and power draw. The Quadro also has a specific purpose and that isn't for games (gasp) hence the price. People need to realise what the Mac Pro is actually used for and the intended market segment it's aimed at.
The Mac Pro is a professional workstation that means film & audio editing, encoding, processing, manipulation etc etc. That means running apps like photoshop, lightroom, aperture, motion, Autodesk Maya, Bryce 3D. Usually you don't need to overclock your graphics card by 500Mhz or whatnot to get photoshop running
and there aren't lolcats going around stealing tha mhz from your 8800GT. The 8800GT is a very nice card in terms of price, performance and power draw. The Quadro also has a specific purpose and that isn't for games (gasp) hence the price. People need to realise what the Mac Pro is actually used for and the intended market segment it's aimed at.
You guys are nutjobs:
The Mac Pro is a professional workstation that means film & audio editing, encoding, processing, manipulation etc etc. That means running apps like photoshop, lightroom, aperture, motion, Autodesk Maya, Bryce 3D. Usually you don't need to overclock your graphics card by 500Mhz or whatnot to get photoshop running
The only thing you've just done is point out that Apple has NO gaming hardware period out there. The only reason people point to the MacPro for potential gaming is that it's the only real choice for gaming on a Mac PERIOD and you have to pay a ridiculous sum to get it. Thus Apple is giving away a lot of potential sales to the Windows market they might otherwise get because people have no choice. Macs can run Windows now, but that doesn't mean they can game if they have no real gaming GPUs.
Must admit that the 24" iMac is getting better at being considered good enough for good gaming.... if you put the 8800 GS in there.
So, not brilliant yet... But it is a start. Ever since the iMac was introduced, it never was good enough to handle the latest games.
Sure, not every iMac buyer was a gamer, but look at the situation like this:
The iMac is considered the ultimate consumer computer. All-in-one, small footprint, looks gr8, easy to setup... etc... So the ideal choice for the consumer at home. But what do most people do at home on their computers?
1. Create Digital Media
2. Consume Internet
3. Some Light Office Work
4. Play Games
The iMac is a 10 out of 10 on the first 3, but until shortly unbelievably bad at the 4th.
And it's all been down to one thing: bad 3D hardware. The iMac's form factor made it necessary to insert mobile graphics in there. We can understand that, but why ALWAYS the worst mobile grfx available??
How long didn't we have to cope with the ATi Rage series in it? Or the über weak GeForce 2 MX... unbelievable.
I can understand low-end iMacs getting cheap grfx, but there simply was no option to get some decent 3D performance, even if you wanted to spend cash!.
After about a decade of "nice and pretty but forget 3D grfx iMacs", we now have a decent option... not the best, but decent.
I think we all know the gap in Apple's line-up... The xMac with:
- A Desktop type Intel Core 2 Duo CPU.
- Replaceable RAM
- The consumer replaceable grfx options of the Mac Pro.
- Space for 3 HD's maybe even a RAID card.
- Half the size of the Mac Pro.
... or something like that...
I am one of those nutters who got a Mac Pro because I simply want it all...
And yes, if my favourite xMac would have been available I would have bought that instead.
So, Apple got a decent extra $ 1k out of me...
But.... it is superb... The best personal computer out there. And it does it all! Well worth my extra ca$h
So, not brilliant yet... But it is a start. Ever since the iMac was introduced, it never was good enough to handle the latest games.
Sure, not every iMac buyer was a gamer, but look at the situation like this:
The iMac is considered the ultimate consumer computer. All-in-one, small footprint, looks gr8, easy to setup... etc... So the ideal choice for the consumer at home. But what do most people do at home on their computers?
1. Create Digital Media
2. Consume Internet
3. Some Light Office Work
4. Play Games
The iMac is a 10 out of 10 on the first 3, but until shortly unbelievably bad at the 4th.
And it's all been down to one thing: bad 3D hardware. The iMac's form factor made it necessary to insert mobile graphics in there. We can understand that, but why ALWAYS the worst mobile grfx available??
How long didn't we have to cope with the ATi Rage series in it? Or the über weak GeForce 2 MX... unbelievable.
I can understand low-end iMacs getting cheap grfx, but there simply was no option to get some decent 3D performance, even if you wanted to spend cash!.
After about a decade of "nice and pretty but forget 3D grfx iMacs", we now have a decent option... not the best, but decent.
I think we all know the gap in Apple's line-up... The xMac with:
- A Desktop type Intel Core 2 Duo CPU.
- Replaceable RAM
- The consumer replaceable grfx options of the Mac Pro.
- Space for 3 HD's maybe even a RAID card.
- Half the size of the Mac Pro.
... or something like that...
I am one of those nutters who got a Mac Pro because I simply want it all...
And yes, if my favourite xMac would have been available I would have bought that instead.
So, Apple got a decent extra $ 1k out of me...
But.... it is superb... The best personal computer out there. And it does it all! Well worth my extra ca$h
I'm jus thrilled that it only took 2 years from our conversation on this thread for Gabe Newell and Valve to offer some sort of support for the Mac community.
Yeah, it's only Portal (yet), and the OpenGL graphics are hampered by not having some of the nicer eye-candy present on the DX10 version, but its a huge step. and it means Half Life 2 and Team Fortress by the Xmas season.
I know what a lot of us are getting this year!
Yeah, it's only Portal (yet), and the OpenGL graphics are hampered by not having some of the nicer eye-candy present on the DX10 version, but its a huge step. and it means Half Life 2 and Team Fortress by the Xmas season.
I know what a lot of us are getting this year!
The biggest thing holding macs back from gaming are the terrible video cards that apple puts into their desktops. This is where the size constraint in the iMacs really come into play. They can't fit a giant 1gb+ video card in there. That's why I go to pcs for gaming. If apple put respectable gaming hardware in their products then people may gravitate.
Apple's logic is that "thin" beats any other consideration. Besides, they believe that any "mid-range tower" type machine would "cannibalize" sales of the Mac Pro, even though it's at least $1000 (more like $2000 with a 'decent' GPU, if one is even available; they don't keep it up-to-date at all, not even video card options) and thus is not REMOTELY in the same price range for them to really be "competing" except in the sense that many "pros" would buy the cheaper tower since the Mac Pro is overkill in the areas that make it expensive and completely underpowered for pursuits like gaming in the stock configuration.
I'm afraid that Apple has dug its own grave on this one. They refuse to admit that the iMac is basically a failure of a machine design (basically amounts to a Macbook with a non-foldable screen in EVERY WAY POSSIBLE) and so like the absolutely retarded one-button mouse design they tried to push on everyone for what seemed like the better part of a Millennium (and then even tried to cover up the mistake by "hiding" the 2nd button when they finally did include it), they are now stuck with a set of machines that overlap the price ranges they consider for cannibalization. What this basically means is that most people buy Macbooks or Macbook Pros because it's the only "normal" machine Apple offers, overpriced as it is none-the-less compared to other hardware manufacturers, which tend to offer a LOT of cannibalization "options" as they know that customers have different needs and different uses for computers.
Apple does not want to admit the "Mini" is also a failure (horribly slowed down to notebook speeds because of its tiny footprint) and so like the iMac, it's just a waste of time and is more about Steve's OBSESSION with making things "small" or "thin" instead of "useful". Apple COULD be making attractive and/or innovative looking small or mid-towers in those price ranges and be kicking some serious butt (at least the "Cube" was cool looking). But no, Apple chooses to sell 90% notebooks and notebooks in disguise, which leads them with only ONE computer for serious desktop consideration and that is the Mac Pro, which is INSANELY OVERPRICED for a desktop computer or gaming rig (at least once you ADD a better GPU; a $2000 desktop in the Windows world would be a serious gaming machine; Apple starts at $2400 with a crippled Mac Pro. You'd have to go well over $3000 to get what you can get in the Windows world for $1000). Because of this, the BEST option is to build a Hackintosh and say frak Apple. Or you can just frak Apple and stick with Windows. Personally, I hate all the viruses and spyware in the Windows world, but this hardware gap is getting to be HUGE (like in the old days of Apple) and that's sad given it's the same bargain based clone hardware Made In Communist China that everyone else is hocking. Apple just charges more because they know the average consumer has no other choices given their stranglehold on OSX hardware (I dare not call it a "monopoly" or I'll get a lecture).
It is really a shame. I too would love to buy a midrange Apple tower. Sadly I'm forced to migrate to Windows because Apple's desktop options have become abysmal. I love Apples mobile products including their laptops. If they keep this up ill always buy an Apple laptop. But their ignoring of the desktop market is really too bad. I'm going to go out and custom build a computer for $1500 that will be miles beyond the highend iMac. Its crazy the price differential now. You gotta step back and think at what point does the beautiful outside stop covering for whats lacking on the inside.
Performance-wise, the iMac is not abysmal. From the standpoint of expandability, yes. Overpriced? No, considering what you get?
It easily outclasses other all-in-ones, btw.
Portal doesn't use DX10.
And I'm willing to bet HL2 and TF will be here far sooner than Christmas.
Throw a better video card into the iMacs and a baseline quad core processor and ill agree with you.
This discussion shouldn't ever be about PC vs Mac. If it wasn't for Valve's commitment to treat both platforms equally, even allowing both sets of users to seamlessly play the same games on the same servers, then it might be, but that's not the case. Valve are treating Mac as a Tier 1 platform, which at the very least puts it above the Playstation 3..
Mouse and Keyboard gaming is under serious threat from console gaming whether you do it on a PC or a Mac, and that's where the focus should be. Mac gaming isn't going to overtake PC gaming anytime soon because of the size of OS X's market share, and given the Mac target demographic you can probably water that percentage of Mac gamers down even more. Rather than think of Mac gaming trying to steal or ebb into Windows' market share, mouse and keyboard gamers should see Steam for Mac as a boom for PC gaming regardless of the OS they use, rather than infighting with each other.
As for the lack of games on Steam? We all knew this would be a gradual process. Valve said they would be updating the store weekly, and porting the games from 1 OS to the other takes time (I imagine). Right now my current Steam library consists of 7 games, including Portal and the life-sucking Football Manager 2010, and frankly for 1 week of service I'm delighted with how much gaming I'm getting out of my Mac. That's 6 more games I'm playing this week than I was last..
Mouse and Keyboard gaming is under serious threat from console gaming whether you do it on a PC or a Mac, and that's where the focus should be. Mac gaming isn't going to overtake PC gaming anytime soon because of the size of OS X's market share, and given the Mac target demographic you can probably water that percentage of Mac gamers down even more. Rather than think of Mac gaming trying to steal or ebb into Windows' market share, mouse and keyboard gamers should see Steam for Mac as a boom for PC gaming regardless of the OS they use, rather than infighting with each other.
As for the lack of games on Steam? We all knew this would be a gradual process. Valve said they would be updating the store weekly, and porting the games from 1 OS to the other takes time (I imagine). Right now my current Steam library consists of 7 games, including Portal and the life-sucking Football Manager 2010, and frankly for 1 week of service I'm delighted with how much gaming I'm getting out of my Mac. That's 6 more games I'm playing this week than I was last..
You've got an incurable case of upgradeitis.
The iMac is not for you.
And what's wrong with the i7 as an upgrade?