Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / New Apple Products

Author
Message
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 14:12
Link
Quote: "PC's should just work the fact that MAC's are so hard to upgrade makes them utterly useless to anyone doing serious computing of any type."


And your basing this on experience with a mac?

How much would someone spend upgrading their PC usually? - processor, motherboard, gfx card, memory... at least £600 just to keep your PC capable of playing the latest games. With a mac, your not having to constantly upgrade, because it's not a gaming machine - most mac users don't need to upgrade very often. They are solid, reliable machines that require little maintenance, hold their value very well, and the software is a helluva lot more reliable than the PC options. I leave my mac on constantly, because it's quiet and it never crashes.

People are more focussed on Steve Jobs, iPhone aerials, and the inability to use a mouse that is in any way different from a £3 PC mouse bought at a supermarket. I run an IT department, in fact I am an IT department - so I know for a fact that the problem is usually between the keyboard and the chair. I would encourage more people at work to get Mac's, but I've got to keep myself in a job, so a cheapo Dell desktop it is .

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Aaagreen
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2007
Location: City 17
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 14:25
Link
Quote: "How much would someone spend upgrading their PC usually? - processor, motherboard, gfx card, memory... at least £600 just to keep your PC capable of playing the latest games."


You should only have to do processor, mobo, power supply and memory once. Then it's entirely down to graphics card every few years.


I'd love to see things from your point of view but I can't get my head that far up my bum.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
The Next
Web Engineer
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Dec 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 14:36 Edited at: 3rd Sep 2010 14:39
Link
I actually do have a MAC at work i work as a web developer and we have a MAC for development reasons and i wouldn't choose one over a PC ever horrible thing, it may turn on fast but wow don't try and use it straight away painfully slow for about 5 minutes.

At least £600 i beg to differ i can run any game on my current PC and only spent £300 approx on upgrading it from the piece of junk it was before that included Motherboard, RAM, Processor and Graphics card. I also only upgrade my PC once every 3 years maybe. About the same amount of time a MAC user would keep a MAC before it gets outdated.

At any rate its better than buying a new MAC that is at least £900 and then you can't run anything on it because it has to be made specially for MAC and you can't use any of the millions of free applications people develop for Windows and Linux.

Wide range of software choices + MAC = Forget it

That cheepo dell PC is better than a £900+ shiny box that claims to be the best. But delivers nothing more than that cheapo dell in the long run.

Rant over, Nothing personal just making my point

Mystic Mod - Putting the fear back into sliced bread since 4th May 2010
Windows 7 Pro, Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8Ghz, 4GB DDR3, Dual nvidia SLI 9800GT 1GB, 1.5TB Hard disk
Back to top
Profile PM
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 14:51
Link
So you got a core 2 duo 2.8, motherboard to go with it, 4gb ram, and 2 SLI 9800GT's for £300 total?

Quote: "you can't use any of the millions of free applications people develop for Windows and Linux."


Nor the viruses, keyloggers, and other nasty malware that's out there . Maybe dealing with peoples kid's Netbooks problems have made me a bit jaded - the mac seems to be void of that stuff, and that makes a big difference to me - I need to trust the computer I'm using 100% before I'll do anything substantial with it.
If they could take away all those kids Netbooks with Limewire installed, and replace them with Macbooks and iTunes - then I'd be a damn sight less stressed, although their parents would have a damn sight less money .

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Fatal Berserker
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 14:55 Edited at: 3rd Sep 2010 14:58
Link
Quote: "How much would someone spend upgrading their PC usually? - processor, motherboard, gfx card, memory... at least £600 just to keep your PC capable of playing the latest games. With a mac, your not having to constantly upgrade, because it's not a gaming machine"

That statement is kinda bias, and incorrect.
Windows computers arnt 'gaming machines' sure some people do get games but thats an enhancement, there also is the ability to do non gaming things just as much, if not more than a mac.
From what ive seen from macs advertisements however they are the gaming and hightec machines which you should be updating constantly.
I know people who havnt updated parts in their pc for many years and still playing top MMOs such as WoW.

Quote: "Nor the viruses, keyloggers, and other nasty malware that's out there ."

Macs also get viruses... your statement implies they dont.

How is itunes going to stop piracy? http://www.spotify.com/uk/free-user/

Smoke me a kipper, ill be back for breakfast.
Back to top
Profile PM
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 15:10
Link
On what planet is WoW an up to date game? - that statement is kinda flimsy. I've seen WoW run beautifully on 7 year old laptops. My younger brother is a WoW nut, his PC's are made from old bits of my PC's, broken biscuits, and gaffer tape - they still run WoW perfectly.

I upgraded my PC last year, motherboard, CPU, gfx card, memory... probably spent well over £450.

I've never had a virus, popup, or any sort of malware on my iMac.

What can I tell you, my experience is different, you can't invalidate my opinion based on your 'perception'.

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Fatal Berserker
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 15:20 Edited at: 3rd Sep 2010 15:29
Link
Quote: "On what planet is WoW an up to date game? - that statement is kinda flimsy. I've seen WoW run beautifully on 7 year old laptops. My younger brother is a WoW nut, his PC's are made from old bits of my PC's, broken biscuits, and gaffer tape - they still run WoW perfectly."

Ok so doesnt that just strengthen my point that you dont need to upgrade ur pc constantly to play top of the range?
WoW is top of its respective field in gaming, and is quite possibly one of the most popular online games, if your younger brother can run it with a PC made with those items you described then doesnt that just prove my point?

Quote: "I've never had a virus, popup, or any sort of malware on my iMac."

We all know you can never be sure that you have a virus, but the last time i had a virus had to of been a year or two ago. Thats hardily many, before then i cant even remember.

If you want to get into paying for high graphics games, then thats another aspect of windows, you dont need to do it to become a gamer.

Before you ask, the only thing i hate about macs are their adds and the way they show their customers to act around other people, i have nothing with the operating system, but i hate the people who own apple because of their schemes to make other companies look appalling.
(i also dislike the UI, but i wouldnt hate macs because of that)

Smoke me a kipper, ill be back for breakfast.
Back to top
Profile PM
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 15:31
Link
The original point was that Mac's can't easily be upgraded, while PC's can - your point is that you don't necesserily have to upgrade your PC, and my point was that you don't necesserily have to upgrade a Mac - so were actually agreeing on seperate terms . I think the upgrading thing was brought up on page 1, I was still in the mindset that were talking about upgrading a PC to play the latest games, which really can't be done cheap and right at the same time.

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Fatal Berserker
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 15:33
Link
Oh, i probably misread your point entirely. mybad ^^.
Playing high graphics, and latest games are 2 different things though. New games always come out that arnt graphically loaded but are still very enjoyable to play.

Smoke me a kipper, ill be back for breakfast.
Back to top
Profile PM
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 15:43 Edited at: 3rd Sep 2010 15:50
Link
Quote: "lol...despite the fact that the 'souped up' (AKA more powerful) Windows 7 machine costs hundreds less? You must not be a student with a limited budget.
"


Actually I am a student on a limited budget - except I do this crazy thing called 'working for money'. You may have heard of it.

Also, you realise you can buy things second hand, right? My first Macbook was £490 off eBay. I later sold it for more than that (£520) added some additional cash and bought a discounted new+sealed Macbook Pro for £720. Yes, it's more expensive than the equivalent Win machine, but it's certainly worthwhile and not as expensive as you seem to make out (also it is definitely worth it if we're talking mobile machines. Cheaper laptops can be pretty damn flakey, and to get something decent I would have probably have ended up spending around the ~£700 mark anyway, so +£20 to get an OS I can tolerate seems an OK deal to me)

09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 15:53
Link
Exactly Fatal - for instance I've recently become addicted to Minecraft, so have it installed on my mac and 2 PC's, but I usually play it on the Mac for some reason - some games just don't need fancy graphics - in fact some games are only fancy graphics, and I hate that.

I will admit though, that I have got a cheap gaming mouse plugged in, because that mac mouse is horrific for games that use the scroll wheel and right clicking.

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Fatal Berserker
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 17:22 Edited at: 3rd Sep 2010 17:27
Link
Heh, Minecraft nearly ruined the end of my last year at school, it became quite addictive ^^.

Id start off in survival, and try to build a massive outpost that would have underground passageways (built in a way so water couldnt flood the entire chamber if i struck gold), and not die, its a very good game.

I gota say though RTW is the best game ever, i got kinda upset the other day when i couldnt find it anywhere so i just had to buy it again from steam. It was only £9.99 for it and its 2 expansions .

Smoke me a kipper, ill be back for breakfast.
Back to top
Profile PM
The Next
Web Engineer
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Dec 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 17:30 Edited at: 3rd Sep 2010 17:38
Link
Quote: "So you got a core 2 duo 2.8, motherboard to go with it, 4gb ram, and 2 SLI 9800GT's for £300 total?"


Actually i did get all of it for less than £300. Apart from one of the 9800GT's which was given as a gift a few months later i only had one to begin with and i only have one now as one has stopped working.

Also as another point i haven't had a virus on my PC for at least 2 years now it just depends how careful you are if you take care of your PC. Macs can 100% get viruses they are a computer the same as anything else and they are still able to get a virus. No one makes them for MAC as they just aren't popular enough to make it worth while.

look at the facts and see why MAC's don't get virus's. http://www.statowl.com/operating_system_market_share.php The reason no one uses them so there is no point in making them.

Mystic Mod - Putting the fear back into sliced bread since 4th May 2010
Windows 7 Pro, Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8Ghz, 4GB DDR3, Dual nvidia SLI 9800GT 1GB, 1.5TB Hard disk
Back to top
Profile PM
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 17:36
Link
Ahh righto, was just confused at how you got all that plus 2 gfx cards, given that even nowadays 9800's are still £60-£80. I was gonna ask where you buy your stuff from!

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
The Next
Web Engineer
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Dec 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 17:39
Link
Yeh i won't upgrade my PC for a while now it does the job and it will last me for a good few years until i need the speed boost again. I rarely buy a brand new PC just change what is outdated.

Mystic Mod - Putting the fear back into sliced bread since 4th May 2010
Windows 7 Pro, Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8Ghz, 4GB DDR3, Dual nvidia SLI 9800GT 1GB, 1.5TB Hard disk
Back to top
Profile PM
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 18:18 Edited at: 3rd Sep 2010 18:25
Link
Quote: "No one makes them for MAC as they just aren't popular enough to make it worth while."


That argument doesn't wash really - Linux is also devoid of malware and yet it's on at least a good 40-50% of the world's web servers (if not more) so you can hardly say Linux isn't "popular enough"

With that in consideration I would say the lack of malware on OS X is hardly a popularity contest either - if anything it would make more sense for malware to target OS X (if you're phishing credit card details for example - ding ding ding - Macs are premium price products, which pretty much guarantees whoever you snatch details off of has some dosh in the bank)

Quote: "ook at the facts and see why MAC's don't get virus's. http://www.statowl.com/operating_system_market_share.php The reason no one uses them so there is no point in making them."


This is why I don't like percentages. I'm not arguing OS X is in fact mega popular - I know it's still a fringe OS. But percentages completely distort things - namely because what are the raw values from that pie chart? What is the total number of the machines?

For a rather stupid example - what if the total was 112 billion? That would make the 'small' ~11% about 12 bil machines - so a small percentage of a whole but an absolutely massive number irrespective of the others!

09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
The Next
Web Engineer
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Dec 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 18:35
Link
Quote: "That argument doesn't wash really - Linux is also devoid of malware and yet it's on at least a good 40-50% of the world's web servers (if not more) so you can hardly say Linux isn't "popular enough" "


I'm very glad you noted that i knew someone would. The reason people develop viruses for linux is for that exact reason it is used to run millions of web servers with highly secure data on them. Whereas MAC's are not. The overall market share for Linux based computers is very low compared to Windows but it does make up most of the server OS's worldwide. Hence why the viruses are made for it.

Mystic Mod - Putting the fear back into sliced bread since 4th May 2010
Windows 7 Pro, Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8Ghz, 4GB DDR3, Dual nvidia SLI 9800GT 1GB, 1.5TB Hard disk
Back to top
Profile PM
Eminent
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 18:36
Link
Hackers will usually target home comps not international businesses, David. You can bet that businesses have all sorts of Anti Virus but the home comp owners are not guaranteed to have Anti Virus. Mac only owns about 6 percent of the market last time I checked so its not worth virusing them.


Back to top
Profile PM
The Next
Web Engineer
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Dec 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 18:36
Link
@Eminent

Someone gets it I'm not alone.

Mystic Mod - Putting the fear back into sliced bread since 4th May 2010
Windows 7 Pro, Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8Ghz, 4GB DDR3, Dual nvidia SLI 9800GT 1GB, 1.5TB Hard disk
Back to top
Profile PM
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 18:45 Edited at: 3rd Sep 2010 18:47
Link
Quote: " The reason people develop viruses for linux is for that exact reason it is used to run millions of web servers with highly secure data on them. Whereas MAC's are not. "


People don't develop viruses for Linux - that was my point (or at least, there is a minute quantity, same as OS X). If Linux is run everywhere (containing highly sensitive data as you said) why isn't every malware creator and their dog targeting it? (Considering popularity is the sole reason OS X isn't targeted as heavily, according to you - even though Linux popularity is through the roof online and is equally lacking malware)

Quote: " You can bet that businesses have all sorts of Anti Virus but the home comp owners are not guaranteed to have Anti Virus."


Mail servers run AV, sure - but that's to protect end users, not the server itself (Linux boxes can still transmit stuff to Windows machines even if they aren't affected themselves). I've never heard of an actual http server running AV, normally they're just sandboxed

Also, provide raw numbers for these % market shares, or they're meaningless (as per my 112 billion example). 6% of an astronomically huge number can still be a huge number.

09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Eminent
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 18:52
Link
Yes, but 94% is much bigger.


Back to top
Profile PM
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 18:59
Link
Quote: "Yes, but 94% is much bigger"


Yes, but if the 6% still represents a significant number, it does not make targeting it 'pointless'

You're using the insignificant sounding value of the percentage to back up your claims, rather than using raw numbers - because the former is incredibly misleading, especially when shown as an area. That 6% could be 4 Macs - or it could be 4 million, or 40 million etc.

09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Inspire
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Dec 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 19:14
Link
There are so many viruses out there for PC whereas there are only a handful I've really heard of for Mac. The ratio of Mac to PC viruses isn't equivalent to the ratio of Macs to PCs, for a good reason.

http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/tp/macvirusfaqs.htm

Quote: "Unlike Windows, Mac OS X applications don't share a common registry. Mac OS X applications use individual preference files, thus the types of global configuration changes which enable so much of Windows malware is simply not as feasible on a Mac. Further, on Mac OS X, the Web browser is not integrated into the operating system - it's a completely separate/independent application. This isolates the browser - a common infection point for Windows users - and helps insulate the Mac OS from external attack. Root access is needed in order for malware to interact with other programs (i.e. steal passwords, intercept transmissions, etc.) By default, root access on a Mac is not enabled."


Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Eminent
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 20:35
Link
Pretend youre a hacker, would you target something that had 94mil users or 6 mil? Making viruses for Windows is MUCH more worthwhile.


Back to top
Profile PM
BearCDP
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2009
Location: NYC
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 20:37 Edited at: 3rd Sep 2010 20:41
Link
I think the virus argument has had its run long before. Sorry David, but I'm with the opposing side on this one. If Mac were more mainstream worldwide, only then could we test its mettle. It seems to me that it would hold up better with its first big worm than Windows XP did considering it's based on BSD, but it's not fair to use the virus argument to praise Mac.

[EDIT]
Inspire, I missed your post with the antivirus.about.com link. I absolutely think those aspects of OS X help it maintain better security, it's just unfortunate that it hasn't been fully put to the test.

I'm run ClamXAv which will scan and update periodically, and have ClamSentry set to watch my download folders.
[/EDIT]

And if you're not worried about upgrading your processor or motherboard more than once, what's the big deal about upgrading Macs? I'll give you that it's a pain to upgrade the mobo and CPU in a Mac, but you said that you shouldn't have to upgrade that . . . ? Hardware arguments have been pointless ever since Apple got smart and switched to Intel.


What's wrong with a Mac that you can't use it for serious computing? I develop Flex-based flash games, Java apps, C/C++ command line tools, and have been playing around with Ruby on Rails, Django, Symfony, Cake, etc. on my Mac and it's been a great experience. I mentioned before that nobody has .NET development and Visual Studio beat if you are able to target Windows as your exclusive platform. No argument against that, I'm loving it. But, if you want to build cross-platform I imagine you'd have more luck porting from Xcode, Eclipse CDT, Netbeans C++, or even MonoDevelop to Visual Studio rather than the other way around.

Also, Mac has its own share of sexy text editors. I have Notepad++, UltraEdit, and other great editors for Windows, and for Mac I have (among many of the same editors on Windows ie: jEdit) TextMate and BBEdit.

And I usually encounter that period of uselessness after startup on Windows more often than Mac. I'm constantly having to run CCleaner and and scan through my process list to make sure something I disabled didn't turn itself back on after startup. On Mac, the only time I've ever had slowdown after login was after installing Butler--which makes sense since it indexes your apps (and I had a ton apps).


And what is "serious computing"? Programming? I think I've made my point about that. Is design not serious computing? I know when I'm producing music I'm doing all in my power to optimize resource usage for it just as I would on Windows or Linux. Is that not serious computing?


And are you really gonna moan about Steve Jobs? I admire him for his business sense and marketing ability, I think he's a douche for telling iPhone 4 users that they're holding it wrong. As long as Apple keeps making products I can enjoy using, Steve Jobs can do what he wants.

Check out this WIP flash game from the Global Game Jam!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 3rd Sep 2010 21:47
Link
Why are we arguing Windows vs Mac? We all know windows sucks. The only reason i use it is because most of my apps don't work on anything else.

For example, If DarkBasic used openGL, and Windows Live Messenger was Linux Live Messenger, I'd be running Ubuntu.

So i think the real argument is Mac vs Linux.

Back to top
Profile PM
Lemonade
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Dec 2008
Location:
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 00:14 Edited at: 4th Sep 2010 00:15
Link
Quote: ""I thought Mac OS is for 'simple' minded people?""


Quote: "What a rediculous statement."


That's not my own argument. I was stating what others had already suggested in this thread.

BTW, I can get you a 3.2 quad-core machine with 4 GB DDR3 1600MHZ RAM, a DX11 GFX card with 1GB RAM, and a motherboard for $350 US dollars. That's 226.35 British pounds (of course, it may not cost the same in Britain). Assuming you already have the basic parts (monitor, case), as most PC users do when upgrading, just add on Windows 7 (a one time purchase) for $180 and you're good to go.

Where as, can you take the screen out of your old iMac? Nope, gotta throw it away and buy a new one with your next iMac.

The cheapest iMac you can get (new) will cost you $1200. Now compare that iMac, which has slower RAM, 768 less RAM on the GFX card (which is not DX11 BTW), and a dual-core processor, to my much more powerful $350 machine.

How can you justify buying it?!?!

Even IF a Mac is more reliable, I could buy 2 more new machines before I spend as much as you did on one.

Quote: "Actually I am a student on a limited budget - except I do this crazy thing called 'working for money'. You may have heard of it. "


Yes, I am employed. I still can't throw money out the window. There are more important things to spend all my money on, such as a car.

Back to top
Profile PM
Aaagreen
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2007
Location: City 17
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 00:21
Link
I built my mum a quad core 3.2ghz work PC with 4gb DDR3 1333mhz RAM (without graphics card, OS and DVD drive) for just over £300.


I'd love to see things from your point of view but I can't get my head that far up my bum.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 00:48
Link
Quote: "768 less RAM on the GFX card (which is not DX11 BTW)"


I wouldn't expect a DX11 gfx card in a mac.

Your looking at a lot of specifications, based on Windows needs - that is no way to compare computers. How much of that 4gb ram is used by Windows. I said earlier in this thread that I am an IT department, in charge of around 120 PC's, I procured and setup probably 110 of those, not counting replacements. I'm talking about everything from the cheapest Dell desktop, to the most over-priced Sony Vaio's - and I would swap none of them for my mac.

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Aaagreen
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2007
Location: City 17
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 00:53
Link
Quote: "(which is not DX11 BTW)"


Why would you have any kind of DX in a mac? DirectX is a Microsoft creation, lol.


I'd love to see things from your point of view but I can't get my head that far up my bum.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
BearCDP
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2009
Location: NYC
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 02:12 Edited at: 4th Sep 2010 02:15
Link
It's not hard spending the extra money to buy a Mac if you enjoy using it.

Of course to keep things in moderation I'm going to stick with one or two Macs at a time as my main desktop/laptop, and use custom biult Windows or Linuxes boxes if I need some little slaves running around.

Why would anybody buy a Lexus RX suv? It drives like a hippopotamus, gets horrible MPG, and costs far more than an equivalent performing car from a manufacturer that doesn't have the fancy-pants reputation of Lexus. It also locks the doors when you put it in drive. Why would you do that? I want to be able to decide when the doors lock, and not have to put it in park when I want to pick someone up.

Note: there's at least 3 of these in my average-income neighborhood.[*] Clearly, people enjoy a luxury ride.


[*]One of which is my mom, so my complaints are indeed justified. Does this mean I walk up to my mom and derail her for owning that car every day I have to look at or drive it? No.

Check out this WIP flash game from the Global Game Jam!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Lemonade
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Dec 2008
Location:
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 02:28
Link
Quote: "Why would you have any kind of DX in a mac? DirectX is a Microsoft creation, lol.
"


Good point lol. Well, why does it come with a DX 10 card...the Radeon 4670 I think.

Back to top
Profile PM
Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 02:43
Link
It's not a DX10 card, it's just compatible with DX10. I hope, otherwise i now look stupid.

Back to top
Profile PM
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 02:45
Link
Why does it come with any card that's DirectX compatible?

Usually because they're decent modern graphics cards able to do their job.

And...I suppose, to satisfy those who dual boot with Windows. In time, no doubt you'll see DirectX 11 compatible cards available on mac, but I doubt keeping up with Microsoft's technologies is their highest priority, though you probably could upgrade the graphics card on the MacPro for a DX11 one if you were a games developer or games enthusiasts intent on having the latest graphics technology who likes to use Windows and MacOS. It's probably quite a small market for Apple.

Click!
Back to top
Profile PM Website
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 03:05 Edited at: 4th Sep 2010 03:30
Link
Quote: "TW, I can get you a 3.2 quad-core machine with 4 GB DDR3 1600MHZ RAM, a DX11 GFX card with 1GB RAM, and a motherboard for $350 US dollars. That's 226.35 British pounds (of course, it may not cost the same in Britain). Assuming you already have the basic parts (monitor, case), as most PC users do when upgrading, just add on Windows 7 (a one time purchase) for $180 and you're good to go. "


A 3.2 what? An AMD by any chance? If we're comparing specs, at least compare like for like: Do the pricing for a superior Intel chip

(I'm not for a moment trying to suggest the Mac will ever be better value spec-wise - but at least compare them fairly to begin with)

Also, add in the cost of all the equivalent components the Mac has (screen etc.). Saying 'yeah but you'll already have those' is pretty unfair too since a decent screen will set you back £150 - £300 depending on size

EDIT: Just to clarify though, I do agree they are ridiculously expensive. My main justification would be purely the OS. Once this machine dies - hopefully in 5-7 years time like my previous machine - I'll very likely do a hackintosh. Buying a mac was mainly buying into seeing what the platform was and using it for the first time. The hardware is outrageously expensive, but at the same time it has been a really good experience using it. If I can get the same for less by hackintosh'ing I'll certainly try it, but I wanted to get the 'genuine' experience first time around, at least to introduce myself to it

That's the other angle of this that's been glossed over too - ignoring cost, it never hurts to learn more about another OS and software ecosystem

09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Eminent
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 03:10 Edited at: 4th Sep 2010 03:10
Link
Sure pay 1 grand for a quad Intel while I get a hexacore 3.2gz AMD with the multiplier unlocked for 295USD....


Back to top
Profile PM
BiggAdd
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: != null
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 03:42 Edited at: 4th Sep 2010 03:59
Link
Quote: "Sure pay 1 grand for a quad Intel while I get a hexacore 3.2gz AMD with the multiplier unlocked for 295USD...."


I paid £700 for an intel processor 3 years ago, and its still in the top positions in the charts.

Future proof your computer, you will end up spending less. In 6 months that processor will be in the bottom of the pile.
Just because an AMD has 6 cores clocked at 3.2GHz, doesn't mean its going to perform as well as an Intel chip.

Screenshot taken from a a 3DSMax rendering chart:


I took the liberty of matching the release date to each processor.

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM
sprite
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Apr 2006
Location:
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 03:43
Link
I have a Mac and a PC.

I find my Mac better for programming and art its not that the OS or the programs are any better for it. Its just better for me.

The programming tools xcode is how to put it nicely a bit different and even with my programming experience I had to look things up. Mainly because of how things are done on it are nothing like I have used before.

There are some little things like where on earth the # key was. However a few days learning little things it becomes as easy as windows to use.

Art I use adobe products bar a few little things like how tablet drivers are setup there is no real difference there.

Most people I find can deal with the conversion to Mac if they give it time and can use google.

Now my PC is used for testing cross platform coding, viewing finished images and gaming.

The cross platform coding well any programmer worth their salt tests everything they make for bugs or unusual results. Having a cross platform code means your going to do more testing and debugging. With coding product like mono it allows anyone to code for both OS.

Viewing images the monitor is bigger on my PC and I can't be bothered to change the cable over constantly. Its easier to send it though the network.

Now gaming I have to admit 90% of my PC are games. I like to keep work and fun in two different places.

I'll add something later on.
Back to top
Profile PM
Inspire
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Dec 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 09:11
Link
Completely unrelated to this argument, has anybody seen anything about Epic's Project Sword for iOS?

It looks freaking nuts. Look it up, right now. So much detail on a phone.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 11:01
Link
I saw an article on it, it looks pretty cool, though I don't know much about it, other than it's by the same people who made Shadow Complex and appears to be a modified version of the Unreal Engine.

Click!
Back to top
Profile PM Website
the_winch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Feb 2003
Location: Oxford, UK
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 11:38
Link
Quote: "I paid £700 for an intel processor 3 years ago, and its still in the top positions in the charts."


That's only because Intel currently have very little competition in the high end. They can get away with charging high prices and letting their high end products stagnate.

If AMD brought out a competitive product early 2008 that chart would look very different. Your £700 CPU would only spend months near the top of the chart not years.

By way of demonstration, he emitted a batlike squeak that was indeed bothersome.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Melancholic
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Nov 2009
Location:
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 12:06
Link
Quote: "Just because an AMD has 6 cores clocked at 3.2GHz, doesn't mean its going to perform as well as an Intel chip"


Please explain(no really, I am interested in building a pc and was going to go with a x6 phenom)

I’m sure in theory a quad core i7 and phenom both clocked at 3ghz would perform equally(also presuming the intel chip dosent have hyperthreading on)? As each can get through a cpu cycle at equal speeds.


I can count to banana...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 14:35
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law

I got told about this when I wanted to buy a quad core, it would seem dual core has the best advantage.

Back to top
Profile PM
Melancholic
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Nov 2009
Location:
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 15:54
Link
Well, I didnt understand much of that. But it does kinda make sense. Though I read some other stuff which suggested that nvidia cards work faster with a Intel CPU then a AMD CPU, is this true?


I can count to banana...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Eminent
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 17:58
Link
A 6 core is really a quad and a dual. or 3 duals. Intels quads are taped together(not literally) duals while AMDs quads are true quads.


Back to top
Profile PM
Aaagreen
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2007
Location: City 17
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 19:03
Link
Quote: "A 6 core is really a quad and a dual. or 3 duals."


I would have thought 2 triples.


I'd love to see things from your point of view but I can't get my head that far up my bum.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Melancholic
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Nov 2009
Location:
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 20:31
Link
Quote: "
I would have thought 2 triples."


That would make sense but AMD do not make any triple cores. Their triple cores are really just quads with a core disabled.

Also, can anyone confirm AMD works better with ATI and Nvidia works better with Intel?


I can count to banana...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Fatal Berserker
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 4th Sep 2010 21:29
Link
Quote: "can anyone confirm AMD works better with ATI
"

http://www.businessweek.com/idg/2010-08-30/amd-says-goodbye-to-the-ati-brand.html

Smoke me a kipper, ill be back for breakfast.
Back to top
Profile PM
Eminent
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 5th Sep 2010 05:35
Link
BTW to the guy that said Mac is affordable, the newest mac pro is a whopping 5 grand. The only that the is going for it is the 12 cores. Everything else is norm except or a slightly above average 6gb ram. You could just get a dual cpu mobo and stick in two Phenom II X6es for 600 bucks(CPU) and the x6es have 3.2ghz against the 2.6ghz of the Apple.


Back to top
Profile PM
JoelJ
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Sep 2003
Location: UTAH
Posted: 5th Sep 2010 07:16
Link
Mac pros aren't affordable. iMacs, Mac Book Pros, Mac Books, and especially Minis are. Not very many people buy the Mac Pros. I've never actually seen one in person

Your mother has been erased by a mod because it's larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-25 07:11:09
Your offset time is: 2025-05-25 07:11:09