Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Reverse Switcher

I myself am also frustrated with Apple, I guess not as much as you. But when I think of the times I am most frustrated. I think of all the times at work I have to deal with PCs, and Windows.

Good luck to you and I hope you can solve all your Vista problems. I will just sit back and enjoy my macs... See you soon:p
 
I did a rough calculation and found its cheaper to get a mac mini/macbook PLUS a PC upgrade (Dual/Quad Core + Motherboard + 2GB RAM + 8800GTS640MB) and still have a about AU$1000 - AU$1500 to spare compared to getting a Mac Pro. Here in Oz, Mac Pro stock is $4000 (US$3360).

So for me Mac Pro is out of the question.

So (in my case and probably yours) if you want the ease, stability of a feature rich OS X, but want very good gaming performance, get yourself a cheap Mac Mini/Macbook/20" iMac and a PC upgrade/360/PS3 for gaming :p.

I can't see :apple: ever being quick in the gaming sector.:(.Once they upgrade the Mac Pros, new ATI and Nvidia cards will be out (R650/9800GTS/X).

If you have a PS3/360 then a Mac is your best choice for basic PC applications (Word Processing, Internet, Multimedia, Editing etc....)
 
I don't understnad.
Apple clearly has a huge gap when it comes down to their product line.
As all know, Apple is growing, and if they want to go higher, they, sooner the better, have to fill this gap.
The Op definitely has a legitimate point.
I know that this is Apple forum, hence more people are trying to defend Apple, and bash those who are about to say anything offensive about Apple.

I also think that spending 1500+USD should atleast give me a certain level of hardware performance.
Since today's trend clearly lies in laptops, Apple is still doing well. Apple offers very nice laptop models. Macbook Pro is plenty competitive against other PC laptops in both speed and OS reliablity. But Apple lacks so miserably in consumer/prosumer desktop line.

If they want their market share to grow, they gotta offer those. People (albeit low in number) interested in prosumer desktop lines are those who knows more about computers in general and hence can offer a great advice to their peers about to switch to Apple.
Sooner or later, Apple has to get these group, who are not professional yet interested in computer hardwares. Their number may be smaller than general users who don't know how to backup/upgrade hardware, but they can affect many people to switch if their experience with apple hardware is possitive.

ps. sorry for grammer and spelling issues, Engllish is not my first language.
 
The next person to say "You want games, get a 360/PS3 duuuude..." will prompt my untimely, self-inflicted death.

I have both and use them for games like GTA, Resident Evil etc but I'd use a PC (inc a Mac if they made a comparable system) for games like The Sims 2, Sim City and C&C3, Thats because they are designed for PC gaming.

I too was a tad disappointed with the last iMac update, I think it looks pretty average and the graphics card needs a good BTO card, Oh, and I hate glossy, I do a lot of photo work and its just not accurate enough without investing in a second screen. The other specs would be fine for me, just the Graphics and screen stop me from buying one.

Apple need to make some alterations to their graphics card line if they want to be best pals with the games companies.
 
dogtanian said:
I have both and use them for games like GTA, Resident Evil etc but I'd use a PC (inc a Mac if they made a comparable system) for games like The Sims 2, Sim City and C&C3, Thats because they are designed for PC gaming.
Click to expand...

I agree that some games doesn't work very well on consoles. Strategy, Sim and FPS was designed with keyboard/mouse combo and high resolutions in mind. How certain people manage to play FPS with a gamepad is beyond me :)

Anyhow. Most Strategy and Sim games will run just fine on the iMac won't they? In fact most games should run fine on the high end model. It's just the latest games that will cause troubles.
Not that it's not an issue. But people keep saying that they can't play any decent games on the new iMac and I think that's just not true.
 
OP is so not the target for the iMac

I have to say that the vocal critics of the iMac are so much not the target population that Steve Jobs is trying to reach. From what you say the Mac Pro sounds like the only Apple computer that might meet your needs. But I'm just amazed that so many folks want Apple to be a company so different from its roots. The first Mac in 1984 had very limited user options. Apple builds the Mac for the largest common denominator, not for those that like in the tails of the bell curve. Control of a relatively uniform hardware space is a major reason for the common software interface.
 
Ah well good luck with switching back, hope it go's well for you but I've a sneaking suspicion you'll be back! I'm really surprised at some of the fanboyish, childish responses on this thread. :eek: Well like I said good luck with the switch!
 
Aranince said:
Apple going public will be the demise of OSX. The reason why its so stable is because theres not a billion drivings crowding the system. The OS being made for specific hardware is what makes it so smooth and stable.

And uhh...Linux is an OS just like OSX and Windows. Do some research please. www.ubuntu.com
Click to expand...
Bla bla bla.

Hacks works nice, they would work better if officially supported.

Linux is just a kernel, the OS should be called GNU/Linux, or whatever =P

(Also I used Linux first in 95-96 and have used free-/open-/netbsd and solaris aswell. And tried QNX, so ..well =P)
 
Lord Blackadder said:
We should see an 8800GTX or Radeon HD 2900 (but not likely both :() included in the next Mac Pro update as a BTO option.

While I think that the OP has good reasons to stick with Windows for the present, my next machine will be a Mac Pro which will be dual-booted for both productivity and gaming. I built a PC for gaming that is now obsolete, and rather than build another one and buy a new Mac I'm going to try to do it all in one machine.
Click to expand...

A Mac Pro would be nice, but it costs a little too much.

Also I really don't want server grade parts in my computer... Not that they are bad at all, they are just very expensive.

For example the RAM in the MAC PRO is extremely expenive to upgrade, even through newegg.

But if you have the money go for it!
 
I have read these forums for a while now and I have come to a conclusion:

Many mac fans are like battered wives.

Constantly coming up with excuses for why Apple is really not being bad or is actually better.

Face facts, while the OS is clearly superior, the hardware is just not there for high demanding consumer. For Pro the Mac Pro is an incredible machine, and for normal email users the other Macs are fine. If you are in between, Apple Mac is not likely the best choice. h
 
I was pretty satisfied with the gaming PC I built - especially because I could drive down to the store and buy an high-end or upper mid-end GPU or CPU for it for a reasonable price, wheras upgrading the GPU (or the CPU in the PPC days) in a Mac is either not possible or expensive with limited options.

The only real drawback was that having three computers (Mac Laptop, Mac Desktop PC desktop) got a bit clumsy, so I think I'm better off investing in the Mac Pro and dual-booting Windows/OS X. It's not cheap, but it is a cheaper and more elegant solution than buying two desktops again.
 
Yes that's the point.

That's the point that everyone is missing. The iMac and the Mini are not for the power users like us. Even though I do have a Mini and I am happy with it (Core Solo). It suits my needs. Sure I can't play that many games on it, but that's okay. That's what I have a game consoles for.

But on the other hand I have to agrea with those that think Apple should come out with a mini tower for those want a headless Mac or a Pro machine. Somthing in between power users and the home market.

Hugh

shortelvis said:
You get what you pay for, it's the experience in total. The average consumer could buy a Mac Mini and still be better off then buying a $1200 brand-new HP rig. Most people don't know how to build a computer, let alone make back up discs. We are the minority and always will be. Apple sells to the majority, period, why? Because they want to stay in business, period.
Click to expand...
 
Having read this thread, I don't think this headless upgradable Mac would fly off the shelves like many people seem to think.

Most people buy laptops anyway (around 60% of Apple's customers), so if anything the desktop market is decreasing.

Most Macs not only allow upgrading of RAM and HD, but make it very easy. These are the main areas I feel that people want a performance boost.

The next area is the GPU and the CPU. You are more likely to want to upgrade a GPU to deal with complex graphics, but as the Mac platform has never been a serious gaming platform (*) it will only be high end pros working in video and the like who need to do this, and they already have the Mac Pro route.

I think it might excite analysts for a while, but as outlined at the beginning I have serious reservations about how well this machine would actually sell.

Of course I could be completely wrong.

* This could be because of lack of hardware to support it, it could also be because MS have done everything with their monopolistic power to keep games tied to the Windows platform.
 
Video cards

I was looking at the specs of the video cards that on the new Imac, and was wondering what's wrong with them? I think both will do a good job playing the new Mac titles come out. I think we should hold off on calling those video cards are crap, yet.

So far all the Mac game titles that have high performce video cards are being addressed with the iMacs. True these cards might not hold up for PC games while running Windows. I would just hold off calling the video cards that are on the iMac are junk until, we see how it holds up to the new games coming to the market for the Mac (C&C and others.).

Let's see what the Mac Games are going to be like using OpenGL instead of Active X.

Hugh




wakerider017 said:
A console should not HAVE be the solution.

If the majority of "Mac buyers, could give a rat's a$$ about gaming" then why are so many large titles coming out for Mac?

Truth is a great deal of Mac owners DO CARE about being able to game on a Mac.

Kinda upsetting when the iMac struggles with current games that have already been released.

Who says prices have to skyrocket? Did you know that the Nvidia 8600GTS (A decent video card) can be had at local retailers for $140? Who knows what Apple could get something like that for. (additionally I am not sure how much a mobile card would cost)

I would estimate at most an $80 price difference. I would not call that skyrocketing...
Click to expand...
 
Hugh said:
I think we should hold off on calling those video cards are crap, yet.
Click to expand...

I don't think they are crap, but what Apple has done is spec the iMacs with a low end card (which is fine as a base option) and an optional mid-midrange card that is sufficient, but not great, for 3D gaming.

My argument is that Apple should offer the option of a high end GPU for gaming in the iMac. The parts would be available off-the-shelf and making it a BTO option means that production costs would not be vastly greater than they would have been with their current choice of cards.
 
Lord Blackadder said:
I don't think they are crap, but what Apple has done is spec the iMacs with a low end card (which is fine as a base option) and an optional mid-midrange card that is sufficient, but not great, for 3D gaming.

My argument is that Apple should offer the option of a high end GPU for gaming in the iMac. The parts would be available off-the-shelf and making it a BTO option means that production costs would not be vastly greater than they would have been with their current choice of cards.
Click to expand...
I don't really see what option Apple had in choosing the card(s) they did. The HD 2600 as spec'd in the iMacs is about the same as the 8600s in the MBPs. The 8800 and 2900 series are too big, hot, power hungry and expensive. There are no mobile variants of these high-end cards yet.
 
flopticalcube said:
I don't really see what option Apple had in choosing the card(s) they did. The HD 2600 as spec'd in the iMacs is about the same as the 8600s in the MBPs. The 8800 and 2900 series are too big, hot, power hungry and expensive. There are no mobile variants of these high-end cards yet.
Click to expand...

Wow! Finally a good answer that makes sense! This is something I can accept as to why Apple put slow GPUs in the iMac. So these video GPUs are the fastest mobile GPUs out right now?
 
Good point - but Apple has never outfitted the iMac line with a high-end mobile GPU, which is my concern.

One of the biggest drawbacks with high-end mobile chips is their power consumption, but this would not be a problem in the iMac since it's plugged into the wall. The heat dissipation in mobile GPUs are designed to be acceptable for use in a laptop so it should be fine in the iMac enclosure.

It's true that the current crop of high-end GPUs haven't gone mobile yet, but Apple has never offered them in the iMac before either, and I think they should.
 
Lord Blackadder said:
Good point - but Apple has never outfitted the iMac line with a high-end mobile GPU, which is my concern.

One of the biggest drawbacks with high-end mobile chips is their power consumption, but this would not be a problem in the iMac since it's plugged into the wall. The heat dissipation in mobile GPUs are designed to be acceptable for use in a laptop so it should be fine in the iMac enclosure.

It's true that the current crop of high-end GPUs haven't gone mobile yet, but Apple has never offered them in the iMac before either, and I think they should.
Click to expand...

I agree, especially as a BTO option. The only problem with more power is a bigger power brick, although the 8800M is supposedly stupidly low power.
 
The Power of X

I will agrea that the Mac OS X has some flaws. It's not perfect in anyway, and it never will. However I have found that OS X is more stable then XP. (I have both a XP & Mac machine).

Since 10.2.x I've only got two kernel panics, that was because I was trying to install some 3rd party program that didn't work right. I also don't have to force quit programs like I do on my XP machine (let me tell you about it! :) )

I don't know, maybe I am just a one of those people that every thing works for them. :confused:

Hugh

wakerider017 said:
A lot of you guys act as if OS X is a God Send... It is great, but not with out its own flaws...

It does lock up, it does have it's problems and if you don't believe take a look around the forums... You guys may not want to talk about it, but I quite often have to use force quit and I have gotten 1-2 kernel panics in a year. The OS is not perfect... It has problems.

How about the problem with macs where you can't turn off the auto dim. there is an option to turn it off, but it does not work... Apple knows about this problem, but there is no fix....

To be quite honest I have found OS X Tiger to be no more stable than XP.

Also EB GAMES is undoubtedly gear toward console games. There are quit a few PC Games in both circuit city and best buy. Just b/c you don't see a bunch of PC games on the wall in a brick and mortar store does not mean that no one wants them... I can tell you right now there are more PC games out there than all your consoles put together.

ALso did you think that a lot of games are now purchased from online stores like newegg... If you have a PC and play games, chances are you have the internet and know how to you use. A lot of games can even be downloaded now.
Click to expand...
 
Hugh said:
I will agrea that the Mac OS X has some flaws. It's not perfect in anyway, and it never will. However I have found that OS X is more stable then XP. (I have both a XP & Mac machine).

Since 10.2.x I've only got two kernel panics, that was because I was trying to install some 3rd party program that didn't work right. I also don't have to force quit programs like I do on my XP machine (let me tell you about it! :) )

I don't know, maybe I am just a one of those people that every thing works for them. :confused:

Hugh
Click to expand...

I don't know, I am very often having to use the force quit option.

Don't see why everyone says XP is so much more unstable... I never had any serious problems with it in the years I have used it. I would say it is equally as stable as OSX..
 
wakerider017 said:
I don't know, I am very often having to use the force quit option.

Don't see why everyone says XP is so much more unstable... I never had any serious problems with it in the years I have used it. I would say it is equally as stable as OSX..
Click to expand...

Currently I agree but by Jan 2008, Vista will be the new standard. I don't think they'll (as in MS, Dell, HP, etc) will sell Windows XP or give any support.

It seems like it took years to perfect XP (well stabilize it and such w/ SP1, SP2, and hundreds of patches) and they just took a step back w/ Vista.
 
so, people, what do we want?

Personally, I want a mac OS in a machine (read iMac) that doesn't have such restrictive specs. I want a machine that will play games an do the things that I want it to as well as having a decent shelf/useage life.

What's the point of aiming to increase your market share if you cant satisfy more % of the market?

I run a 2 laptops at home and the windows (xp) one has run for 4 years about 4 hours per day (often more) with no problems - albeit with free 3rd party spy/malware, antivirus etc.

I think that the gap in capabilitites has closed and its now a battle of style/substance. The new iMac has precious little of the former and very little of the latter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back