PC vs. Mac (PIC)

[skipclarke]

I didn't read every post, so someone may have already said this:

Moot point: OS X.5 + Bootcamp = Mac + Win

With a Mac you get the best of both worlds, while avoiding the worst. Don't see that with a PC.

And, the price quote on the iMac is crazy stupid.

[GeneralAdmission]

Then announcing that they sold a million copys of Crysis.

...and EA stated clearly on a conference call that this had exceeded sales expectations. Read = significantly profitable.

Was rather humorous that this was announced concurrently with Mr. Yerli's rant about pirates stealing Crysis, murdering kittens, and raping trees.
:lol:

--Back on topic--

Aw. You were doing so good until that last statement. ;)

hehe. What's the use in swooping in and pacifying an entire thread? Lighter fluid is so much more exciting. ;)

Bastard, as soon as you said Joe the Plumber all of my internal thoughts and reading became narrated by the voice of Sarah Palin. Do you know how horrible that is?

ROFL.
I have only a quote from Will Ferrell to respond: "George Bush always gets his man...with one HUGE exception." :D

But seriously, I do have real reasons for being a PC guy.

-Gaming (+modding and gamedev). Macs are catching up, but this isn't even a choice.
PC FTW.

-Hardware Control. With my PC I can choose, change, customize, and build my rig however I want, from scratch. With OS X, it's actually illegal to install it on non-Apple hardware. :( My future server box and workstation plans only exacerbate this point (to Apple's detriment).
I learned computers by taking apart, building, rebuilding, and accidentally executing my earlier PCs (286, 386, 486--that one I didn't kill). Those are some fond memories, and I could guarantee I wouldn't be nearly the uber-geek I am today had I gone the "Mac Road" (buy a box, use it, buy a new one, rinse, repeat).
PC FTW.

-Windows. This is more a culmination of experience than inherent difference, but I know the OS well enough that I can make it work pretty much however I want, and I rarely have a problem. Also, Macs have always irritated me in a few ways.
This is not to say I have 'special love' for Windows. I didn't upgrade to XP until 1 month before Vista's launch, and I refuse to use Vista.

Of course this is all a matter of preference. Some folks could care less about gaming or hardware control and would rather have a 'simple box'. I'm just not part of that crowd.

[ctrlsteef]

I didn't read every post, so someone may have already said this:

Moot point: OS X.5 + Bootcamp = Mac + Win

With a Mac you get the best of both worlds, while avoiding the worst. Don't see that with a PC.

And, the price quote on the iMac is crazy stupid.

Seconded mate. :wink:

[Dem Pyros]

I didn't read every post, so someone may have already said this:

Moot point: OS X.5 + Bootcamp = Mac + Win

With a Mac you get the best of both worlds, while avoiding the worst. Don't see that with a PC.

And, the price quote on the iMac is crazy stupid.

Although you have to pay an out the nose premium for the brand name, and they do can have some very horrible hardware issues, which complicates things more for simple fixes (ex. my friend recently had to pay over $100 to get a new keyboard for his Macbook. I replaced the keyboard myself on my Dell for less than $20).

Not saying PC's are better, but I avoid Mac for the premium and some of hardware issues.

The new HDCP problem on the newer Macbooks for DVI output? It's just so sad of how ridiculous of an oversight that is.

[DaFox]

[quote]I didn't read every post, so someone may have already said this:

Moot point: OS X.5 + Bootcamp = Mac + Win

With a Mac you get the best of both worlds, while avoiding the worst. Don't see that with a PC.

And, the price quote on the iMac is crazy stupid.

Seconded mate. :wink:

The problem is its still rather shit for gaming. Whats the best graphics card that you can buy for a Mac currently? I could only find an 8800GT.


Vista Ultimate 64 + OSX86 on a good PC ([email protected]+, HD4850+ ect) = Mac + Win

[The_cranky_hermit]

I have no use for Macs. I do a lot of things on my $700 PC. For an extra $30, I could have upgraded it to a 2.8Ghz C2D processor, making it similar in specs to a $1800 iMac. There is not a single thing I would do on a $1800 iMac that I couldn't do just as well or better on the $730 PC.

Then announcing that they sold a million copys of Crysis. Which is a respectable number across any platform, let alone a PC Exclusive and not to mention a new I.P..

A million copies for a big budget big profile game like Crysis is peanuts. Half-Life 1 was also PC exclusive (for a while), was not only a new IP but from an unheard of company, had a small budget, a low-key advertising campaign, and was released at a time when there were fewer people buying games. It sold eight million. That is a respectable number.

And when you consider that more than 20 million copies of Crysis were pirated on BT alone, 1 million sales is shameful.

EA stated clearly on a conference call that this had exceeded sales expectations. Read = significantly profitable.

I read it as saying what they need to say to please the shareholders. It's not uncommon for publishers to exaggerate their successes, even if the reality is that they are in big trouble. Developers, on the other hand, have nothing to gain by exaggerating their losses.

[ViciousXUSMC]

Ever since Mac moved to intel hardware and was able to run windows I knew it had to work in reverse.

So did they so thats why they paid to draft up a UELA that says you cant use OSX on a PC.

I build computers as a hobby I know whats inside of say a MBP, for the $2500 version of the MBP I can get the same or better from many other brands for $1600 we are talking nearly a 50% price increase for the SAME hardware. Apple has all of there cards in the right place to make this some how legal.

I know your going to have counter arguments and say that its not the hardware, its the quality, the service. Im sorry I review laptops & PC's I work with many companies and products. I have had pass through my hands products nicer than the Macs that have equal customer service and better warranties. I could also very easily point you to several horror stories about people exchanging multiple Macs or MPB's to get a unit working correctly.

Apple just has the best freaking fan club in the world and great marketing. Until more people get educated on what they are buying the trend will continue and Apple will continue to over charge people for products.

Other companies would get sued for extortion or something. So I respect the fact they want to charge you like $1000 more for an apple logo on your machine and the entrance fee to use OSX. Up until they started to use Windows. Then they created a whole new situation.

If Mac can run Windows, PC can run OSX. Thats only fair and moral. I mean otherwise it would be no different than racial prejudice that is both looked down upon and illegal. "If your this brand you can do this" "If your that brand you cant"

I think apple is being greedy letting things be a one way street with there hardware. If people want to go spend the money to buy OSX and use it on there PC let them! I think it would only be good for them as then more people would use the OS so software development would be higher, more users and more knowledge about the OS. Yeah they may lose money because the hardware sales would take a dumpster dive, but then they can do what every other company does out there. Compete for there market share by having the better product for the price based on performance, quality, and other factors.

Would a single person here wish that Intel had some kind of death grip on AMD like this? We all agree that when Intel had AMD down for the count almost for a while there that it was bad because that meant higher prices and less competition for better goods.

When Nvidia was owning ATI for awhile we all were so happy with the 4000 series came out for dirt cheap and sucker punched Nvidia finally ATI was back on the map and you found red cards in computers instead of green :P What happened right after? Nvidia cut prices to compete, and the products rapidly expanded to new models.

If Apple was pulled down from there throne and forced to follow the same trends it would only be good for us. Mac users can continue to have there Macs but the prices would be cheaper, and PC users could finally get a taste of that rare wine that is OSX without having to sell a kidney or feel like they are forced to sit on the back of the buss just because they dont have an Apple on there machine somewhere so they cant run the same OS.

Now according to Dr. Google it is not Illegal to have OSX on a PC, it is in violation of the UELA, so at worse you can have Apple take your license away for that OS but there is no legal action that can be taken against you. Also in its current state the EULA is worded so that "apple marked" products can use the OS, so as long as you place a apple logo on your PC it wont even violate the UELA. Maybe thats not how it was intended but you have your rights and if they want to play a paper war and try to steal your rights like some kind of totalitarian government, then get them back in there own game.

Mac + Windows is not the best solution IMO

PC + OSX is, since you can get the same thing for about half the cost.

Mac is not making these parts, thats the brand they are sold under. Intel makes the chipsets & cpu's, AMD or Nvidia make the GPU's, Micron or Nanya make the RAM IC's, Samsung or one of those various Chinese companies make the display panels.

As a computer enthusiast forum I would expect most of you to undestand where I am comming from, but I know also especially here on WSGF we have some very hardcore Mac fans and I dont expect to change your view on things no matter how much evidence I present to you.

Not until you have a hackintosh in your hands one day that out performs your real Mac and cost about half would you maybe see the light. Even then you would probably stick to some excuse like its not allowed.

I cant wait for PC & Mac to tell us all we can not build computers anymore, that we have to buy prebuilt ones only and pay crap loads more. Thats the same situation but in reverse. You had the ability & right to build a PC up till now and it was taken from you. You would probably not comply.

I mean if they told you because they passed some kind of EULA for Windows that you have to use a certified pre-built windows machine to use the OS, but you know you can build a better machine for half the cost. What would you do? I bet most of you say "screw that i'll see you at newegg" and build your own anyways and ignore the EULA. However most Mac users will tell you "If you dont want to pay the money for a Mac then shut up and dont use the OS"

In response people like me have been happy PC users instead :P I mean every Mac program has a PC equivalent, but I can find so many things I can do on my PC that Mac has not alternative for.

So in conclusion, just like building a computer you can build a Mac you just have to stand up for your right to equality. Are you going to let some words on a piece of paper somewhere that they paid to have enforced tell you what to do and case you to pay more for something just because?

Im one of many people that Apple would get $200 or what ever it cost to buy OSX for my PC that they will never get from me currently. Also soon as they open the flood gates I know many companies will start making "OSX Certified" machines that are built part for part to be fully compatible with OSX and then Apple can make money for the OS sales that would come packaged with those computers.

[Paradigm Shifter]

EA stated clearly on a conference call that this had exceeded sales expectations. Read = significantly profitable.

I read it as saying what they need to say to please the shareholders. It's not uncommon for publishers to exaggerate their successes, even if the reality is that they are in big trouble. Developers, on the other hand, have nothing to gain by exaggerating their losses.

Unless given information to the contrary that is trustworthy, disbelieving a report "just because" seems rather shortsighted. And I very much doubt that EA are in "big trouble" or even "trouble". Some developers, especially certain ones that shall remain nameless, seem to think they're practically rockstars with how frequently they mouth off about things recently. Some other developers, who shall also remain nameless, keep their own council, their heads down, and code awesome games that people will still be playing five or ten years from now, long after the current crop of 'blockbuster' titles are long forgotten.

...

As for Half-Life 1 and sales... HL1 had good developer support for it (how many patches?) and a quickly released superb SDK toolset that allowed people to do pretty much whatever they wanted to with the game. And fairly good multiplayer even in the vanilla (but patched) game. Also, it was imaginative and tried new things at a time where there were not a thousand 'me too!' clones knocking around. It's rather like the current MMO craze - World of Warcraft has a near-rabid following, so other devs think "I'll try cashing in on that!" only it doesn't work, because the game that grabbed the attention is better than the 'me too!' clone.

And no matter what... Far Cry did something new. It did some drop-dead gorgeous (for the time) graphics. Crysis, like probably 90% of the current FPS games, just follows on from that and goes "graphics are God!"... without any actual attempt to be original. On-the-fly weapons mods are almost original, but weapon mods themselves aren't, nor are the 'nanosuit' powers, which can be fairly well compared to, say, Deus Ex and the augmentations in that game.

[DaFox]

A million copies for a big budget big profile game like Crysis is peanuts. Half-Life 1 was also PC exclusive (for a while), was not only a new IP but from an unheard of company, had a small budget, a low-key advertising campaign, and was released at a time when there were fewer people buying games. It sold eight million. That is a respectable number.

And when you consider that more than 20 million copies of Crysis were pirated on BT alone, 1 million sales is shameful.

Just because you take a bizarre example doesnt mean that a lesser one is not respectable. By your logic that would mean that the other male swimmers in the 2008 olympics did not have respectable times just because phelps had the best time?

I would like to know how many copys Half-Life sold in the same time period as Crysis, I would be utterly baffled if it was more than a few million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#PC

There has not even been 100 PC games to sell over a million copys, considering theres a couple thousand (source: MobyGames, 2000 games released in 2007) pc games released every year thats most defiantly an honor in my opinion.

All of this is without even taking into the fact that... well Half-Life was an AMAZING game and Crysis well erm it was less than stellar to say the least.
As PS pointed out, Crysis also has little to no support from its developer, I think that can tell you how great of a game it is, oh wait.


I also have a very hard time believing that 20+ million people can even run crysis. Which makes me believe that most people downloading it are just seeing if it will even run on their PC, not downloading it to play the game.


Also the original picture accomplished its stupid task. To create controversy.

[skeeder]

Agreed.

Macs have their uses, If it wasn't for a G4 boats wouldn't have anchors! :lol:

[dopefish]

I build computers as a hobby I know whats inside of say a MBP, for the $2500 version of the MBP I can get the same or better from many other brands for $1600 we are talking nearly a 50% price increase for the SAME hardware. Apple has all of there cards in the right place to make this some how legal.

Compare retail versus retail and you'll find the prices are incredibly equal. The only reason you can get PCs for much cheaper is because you buy the parts separately. The average person does not build their own PC. You need to compare the prices at retail.

If Mac can run Windows, PC can run OSX. Thats only fair and moral. I mean otherwise it would be no different than racial prejudice that is both looked down upon and illegal. "If your this brand you can do this" "If your that brand you cant"

I think apple is being greedy letting things be a one way street with there hardware. If people want to go spend the money to buy OSX and use it on there PC let them! I think it would only be good for them as then more people would use the OS so software development would be higher, more users and more knowledge about the OS. Yeah they may lose money because the hardware sales would take a dumpster dive, but then they can do what every other company does out there. Compete for there market share by having the better product for the price based on performance, quality, and other factors.

I think you're missing the point here. Apple is a hardware company. They design their hardware in-house. Sure, they use components from other companies like Intel and nVidia, but the designs, motherboards, etc. are created in-house.

Apple and Microsoft are selling two different things. Apple is selling Mac hardware. Microsoft is selling Windows (software). Because Apple produces and builds their own hardware, they can pick and choose which operating systems can run on it. They allow both OS X and Windows, as well as any Linux, BSD, or others that you would like to use.

Since Apple is in it for the sales of their hardware, because they are a hardware company, then if they sold OS X and let it run on any system... people wouldn't be as likely to buy their hardware. Apple would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did this. Software development on OS X is high for the market share that it has. There is a lot of information and knowledge on the system out there already. Hell, most of it is open-source. It's a real UNIX, so the underlying system is already known and understood to anyone who's worked with UNIX-certified operating systems before.

Anyway, Apple is a hardware company. Leave it at that.

Now according to Dr. Google it is not Illegal to have OSX on a PC, it is in violation of the UELA, so at worse you can have Apple take your license away for that OS but there is no legal action that can be taken against you. Also in its current state the EULA is worded so that "apple marked" products can use the OS, so as long as you place a apple logo on your PC it wont even violate the UELA. Maybe thats not how it was intended but you have your rights and if they want to play a paper war and try to steal your rights like some kind of totalitarian government, then get them back in there own game.

It is definitely a violation of the EULA. If they revoke the right for you to use the operating system, then you are most definitely using their operating system without authorization and that would be illegal. On top of that, you can't just slap an Apple logo on your system and say it's okay. You do not own the right to use their name and/or logo without authorization. So if, for some insane reason, Apple decides to take you to court, you'd probably get hit with extra stuff for using their OS on a non-Apple hardware product, and for using their logo without permission.

[Soduka]

May I reiterate: Not one "EULA" has yet to hold up in an actual court in the United States. Just because Apple's EULA says that it would be illegal to do such and such, well, do I really care what they have to say in a fake legal document?


The_cranky_hermit appears to still be sore about the DRM debate thread a little while ago. Not only does he not cite any sources for any of his claims, but he also seems to get to decree what is and what is not a respectable number of games sold while still not mentioning the expected sales figure, company conditions, etc.

Wait, I think he does mention the fact that Crysis sold better than they thought, but then says "Yeah, but they probably made that up." Nice.



/practicingthreadderailmenttheory

[dopefish]

May I reiterate: Not one "EULA" has yet to hold up in an actual court in the United States. Just because Apple's EULA says that it would be illegal to do such and such, well, do I really care what they have to say in a fake legal document?

You're going to have to cite a source for that. :)


There have been plenty of EULAs held up in court. There have been several victories upholding the GPL. Blizzard won against some creators of a bot for violating the EULA, and won six million USD from it. So far I've found four victories just on the first 10 results of my Google search. I'm not even going to go into the second, third, or more pages. :)


Apple also has Psystar in court for violating the EULA. Nothing has come out of it yet, but a judge has dismissed Psystar's counterclaim. This will be a case to watch if you're interested in seeing the success of Apple's EULA in court.

[GeneralAdmission]

You're going to have to cite a source for that. :)

From the "What you get to do with the software you purchase" department, this is a big one:

AutoCAD is sold, not licensed

[dopefish]

[quote]You're going to have to cite a source for that. :)

From the "What you get to do with the software you purchase" department, this is a big one:

AutoCAD is sold, not licensed

Well... I was trying to get him to prove that no EULA had ever been upheld in US court, when I clearly came across a bunch that did. ;)

There are some that don't uphold, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that some still did. ;)


Of note in that article, though, is that the guy had never opened or installed the software, so there were no license agreements made in the first place (in this particular case).

[The_cranky_hermit]

Unless given information to the contrary that is trustworthy, disbelieving a report "just because" seems rather shortsighted.

I think Crytek announcing that piracy was rampant enough to discourage PC exclusivity counts as "information to the contrary."

And I very much doubt that EA are in "big trouble" or even "trouble".

I'm not saying they are. I'm saying that publishers can exaggerate even when they're in trouble. And since EA isn't even in trouble, they have even less of an inhibitor to exaggeration than a publisher that is in trouble.

As for Half-Life 1 and sales... HL1 had good developer support for it (how many patches?) and a quickly released superb SDK toolset that allowed people to do pretty much whatever they wanted to with the game. And fairly good multiplayer even in the vanilla (but patched) game. Also, it was imaginative and tried new things at a time where there were not a thousand 'me too!' clones knocking around.

Most of these things are true about Crysis too. But one correction - the market at the time was pretty much flooded with a sea of Doom clones, much like the market right now is flooded with Half-Life clones.

Crysis, like probably 90% of the current FPS games, just follows on from that and goes "graphics are God!"... without any actual attempt to be original.

I think Crysis's physics was original. Half-Life 2 promised that physics would be useful in the gameplay, and the E3 demos looked promising, but the end result is that physics are used for some simple puzzles and to throw stuff at enemies. In Crysis, the physics are actually useful in the gameplay.

By your logic that would mean that the other male swimmers in the 2008 olympics did not have respectable times just because phelps had the best time?

Half-Life outsold Crysis 8 to 1. Phelps did not beat anyone at the Olympics 8 to 1.

There has not even been 100 PC games to sell over a million copys, considering theres a couple thousand (source: MobyGames, 2000 games released in 2007) pc games released every year thats most defiantly an honor in my opinion.

First of all, check your source again. There are 1155 PC games released in 2007 according to Mobygames. Second, that source is flawed. Anything that was re-released, localized, or even patched at any time during the year 2007 will appear under 2007. Doom II is one of the 1155 PC games released in 2007.

All of this is without even taking into the fact that... well Half-Life was an AMAZING game and Crysis well erm it was less than stellar to say the least.

The bulk of the reviews out there do not reflect your opinion.

I also have a very hard time believing that 20+ million people can even run crysis.

Why? Crysis isn't that hard to run, and companies like ATI, nVidia, and Intel are making killings off of gaming hardware every year.

Which makes me believe that most people downloading it are just seeing if it will even run on their PC, not downloading it to play the game.

Even if a demo didn't exist, it's pretty naive to believe that the majority of people acquiring a game do not intend to play it. Given that a demo does exist, it smacks logic in the face.

The_cranky_hermit appears to still be sore about the DRM debate thread a little while ago.

I'm not sore about the debate. I'm sore that good games like Crysis get decimated by piracy and also sore that the pirates try to rationalize it by blaming the developers for not trying hard enough.

[The_cranky_hermit]

Blizzard won against some creators of a bot for violating the EULA, and won six million USD from it.

FYI, they were already violating DMCA. All the violated EULA part did was re-iterate laws that already existed in DMCA. I have never heard of a EULA standing up in court on its own legs.

[DaFox]

Blizzard won against some creators of a bot for violating the EULA, and won six million USD from it.

Hardly. In the end the EULA had nothing to do with it why? because the courts would not accept it. The final thing that brought wowglider down was that blizzard somehow (courthouses are really freaking stupid when it comes to technology) managed to claim that loading a program into memory is a violation of its copyright. Which is absolutely horrible.

[skipclarke]

This has wondered far from a full little post to a brewing flame war on EULAs, piracy and all manner of unsavory topics. Please bring back in line and tone it down or I will lock the thread.

[MobsterOO7]

GETTING BACK ON TOPIC

I myself do not prefer Macs. But that's mostly a preference based on me being brought up with nothing but Windows. So when I use a Mac its like a stranger walked into my house dressed as my best friend: its awkward and I just want it to go away.

I'm sure Mac's are better for some things, like raw processing work with those crazy 8 core machines. Apparently the displays made by Apple are better, and that is the ONLY argument I have heard from anybody in graphic design about why Mac's are better for it.

Of course we have windows, which has a horrible reputation for its instability; which had almost been improved until Vista was released, and its general crappyness when the hardware and system optimization are not up to par; which is unfortunately the case more often than not.

Basically, to each his own. With computers you will NEVER have the perfect solution in one package.

BTW Rocketdock/Object Dock for Windows is awesome.