Can't wait to see the Windows fanboys start going on about the mythical Mac users who claim that every aspect of the Mac is better than the Wintel alternative. It must be nice to live in a fantasy world.

That's intense.

It appears that the PPC _would_ have been as fast as the x86, if only enough sales (read: companies justifying the cost of creating the code) could have justified writing for it. If that's true, it is at least a consolation, cause in theory the Mac fans were correct then.

Off topic, I think that a lot of people would like to see Mac OS on their pc's without the proprietary hardware. I also think that this doesn't mean that Apple should stop selling their own hardware at the same time (Think Arthur Andersen and Accenture minus the corporate scandal thing). I am one of them. I won't go Mac unless I can just get the OS. Don' t know why that is, but that's how it is. Plus think about how competition breeds innovation and reduced price. I think Apple on Intel brought the competition much, much closer.

That would kill Apple.

I work at a newspaper (such as it is...), and when I occasionally wander upstairs, I notice that the graphics department is nothing but Macs (even though they're mostly G3s), while all the other departments use Windows.

Macintosh has always enjoyed a great reputation among graphic designers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most computer games graphics designed on Macs, but made for Windows? It's an incredible irony. That's why it's so hard (but not impossible) to find Mac games. Again, IMO, Macs are graphics workhorses, while Windows are made for everything else.

Now that Apple is going to manufacture x86 PCs, we finally start seeing the true stories about how much faster the x86 is compared to the PPC. iLemmings give it up, you know you got conned by Steve's RDF that MHz doesn't matter.

need I say more?

Quote

Guest wrote:
I work at a newspaper (such as it is...), and when I occasionally wander upstairs, I notice that the graphics department is nothing but Macs (even though they're mostly G3s), while all the other departments use Windows.

Macintosh has always enjoyed a great reputation among graphic designers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most computer games graphics designed on Macs, but made for Windows? It's an incredible irony. That's why it's so hard (but not impossible) to find Mac games. Again, IMO, Macs are graphics workhorses, while Windows are made for everything else.

I do graphic arts and even though the important design software programs are also available for Windows, the Macintosh as my platform of choice. I like the look and feel of the Mac, the elegance and refinement.

I have a couple of Windows computers, but mostly use them for testing web sites I am working on. I have a late model HP laptop and I hope to hell that Intel and Apple get the processor operating temperature down. That HP puts out a heat signature that would trigger a spy satellite into issuing a launch warning.

As to computer games, I don't play them on either platform. My fun activities is more into, art, nature walks and reading.

What ever trips your trigger.

Gaming. This seems to be so huge for some reason. Only because of the amount of people that play them. I personally don't because I think they're very unproductive. Which leads me to my Subject.

How many mac users use their computer to make money AND be creative at the same time. LOTS. Now do you think they'd be making money playing computer games? NO no one would on any platform but so many Wintel geeks keep going on and on about how the Mac platform isn't the gaming choice due to the video card and such. PLEASE. I'd rather be creative and getting paid for it at the same time instead of showing my Video Card Cock-Extension and how fast Doom is. I don't care. Give me a Logic Pro and a Final Cut Pro system that's stacked with major plug-ins so I can produce the next hit record. NOT the highest score or how many enemies I've "pwned" on the internet.

The true test of performance on a machine is how long it can withstand rigorous media production for high budget clients WITHOUT fail (unlike the unstable Windows platform). Real world work horses are performance per dollar. I would gladly pay $1000 more on a machine that will give me less trouble knowing that aboslutely everything from the software to the hardware is tightly integrated for rock solid stability. I'm not in the mood to guess at whether a video card will work with a mother board that will work with certain ram that will work with which hard drive that will work with the drivers that might work with the OS and so on and so on and so on.

Macintel for the future. IBM, you f*cked up you lazy bastards and Microsoft, you totally abused your relationship with Intel.

Egos here have caused land mines.

You have benefited from those gamers...

Gamers desire to repeatedly plunk down wads of cash so they can have the latest, greatest, fastest machine in order to watch buckets of blood fly across the screen in ever more realistic spatter patterns have done more to push computer makers to make faster machines than all the word processing, spreadsheet using or graphics arts crowds ever could.

I generally don't play games, but I remember the days when after applying a filter in Photoshop that I could go get a cup of coffee, wash the car and the cat, and still have time to do my taxes. When today that filter takes moments, I do appreciate them.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Now that Apple is going to manufacture x86 PCs, we finally start seeing the true stories about how much faster the x86 is compared to the PPC. iLemmings give it up, you know you got conned by Steve's RDF that MHz doesn't matter.

Christos! I can't wait for Apple to final do a PR proclaiming they had been full of mule muffins the whole time! I mean, the idea of corporation putting a spin on a product to just make it seem better than anyone else's is a little much to take. I mean, noboby NOBODY ever does that. I am also pretty sure that Burger King owes us an apology too about that "Have it your way" thing.

"Now that Apple is going to manufacture x86 PCs, we finally start seeing the true stories about how much faster the x86 is compared to the PPC. iLemmings give it up, you know you got conned by Steve's RDF that MHz doesn't matter."


Sorry, Reality Check, but you're dead wrong. Check the facts:

http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

Quote

Guest wrote:
You have benefited from those gamers...

Gamers desire to repeatedly plunk down wads of cash so they can have the latest, greatest, fastest machine in order to watch buckets of blood fly across the screen in ever more realistic spatter patterns have done more to push computer makers to make faster machines than all the word processing, spreadsheet using or graphics arts crowds ever could.

I generally don't play games, but I remember the days when after applying a filter in Photoshop that I could go get a cup of coffee, wash the car and the cat, and still have time to do my taxes. When today that filter takes moments, I do appreciate them.

Not all computer games are violent. I personally prefer "puzzle"-type E rated games such as the Myst series, Riddle of the Sphinx series, or even the (very adult-oriented) computer games available at the Peter Gabriel website.

But as much as I like using Photoshop and whatnot, let's be honest - most people who buy a computer for home use are going to be gamers.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Now that Apple is going to manufacture x86 PCs, we finally start seeing the true stories about how much faster the x86 is compared to the PPC.

The Mac was in most benchmarks comparible in performance for most tasks as faster Intel chips. However, for GAMING plain clockspeed counts IF you don't write optimized code. Something ID Software is admitting to not to do.

So, just go play with your Dell in your Moms basement....ok? Or get a real life, leave your shell, join your community and do something positive for it. You will be surprised how good it will make you feel.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Now that Apple is going to manufacture x86 PCs, we finally start seeing the true stories about how much faster the x86 is compared to the PPC. iLemmings give it up, you know you got conned by Steve's RDF that MHz doesn't matter.

Note that Mr. Carmack never said such a thing. Specifically, he stated that the "compiler / cpu / system / graphics card" combinations on the Mac, for gaming purposes, weren't as fast, not that x86 itself is faster than PowerPC.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Now that Apple is going to manufacture x86 PCs, we finally start seeing the true stories about how much faster the x86 is compared to the PPC. iLemmings give it up, you know you got conned by Steve's RDF that MHz doesn't matter.

Apparently RC didn't read the article, "compiler / cpu / system / graphic cards" were not as fast. Slight difference?

Most 3D artists work in windows. Graphic Design, Apple.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I work at a newspaper (such as it is...), and when I occasionally wander upstairs, I notice that the graphics department is nothing but Macs (even though they're mostly G3s), while all the other departments use Windows.

Macintosh has always enjoyed a great reputation among graphic designers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most computer games graphics designed on Macs, but made for Windows? It's an incredible irony. That's why it's so hard (but not impossible) to find Mac games. Again, IMO, Macs are graphics workhorses, while Windows are made for everything else.

Isn't it an 'Big' v 'Little' thing when it comes to gaming performance (endian that is..).

Also word on the audio street is that mastering apps for Mac do not produce the same quality as those (by the same company I might add...) for Windows. Maybe an endian issue there too? This from someone who has both and proper monitoring, not Guitar Center junk...

It's nothing to do with endianness. It's everything to do with pipelining, microcode, cache, and bandwidth.

Endianness can not cause discrepancies in audio quality. Give it a rest and mull something else over.

[quote="Guest"]Most 3D artists work in windows. Graphic Design, Apple.

3D work is often done on Linux as well. Mainly because you can get 3D software for Windows and Linux. For Mac, there's Maya... which is a Linux package.

Post production tends to be done on Mac or Windows, but Apple's Shake runs better on x86 Linux than it does on PPC Mac. Macintel should make a huge difference to post production.

Why all the jibber jabber a year before things even start. And as far as games go. The next gen consoles are looking real good. Apple is about iLife applications. Photos, e-mail, VOIP, music and soon movies these are where Apple will help people control their lives. And if I have to run Windows to run a few games. Hey Windows makes the best Games OS out there. Business and everything else? meh!

When all three console gaming systems are equipped with G5 class PPC processors we may see a major change to the current state of affairs. There will be strong pressure on all game developers to do good PPC optimizations. One could argue that the resolution and features demanded by PC gamers exceeds that of console gamers, but in the future consoles will not be connected to low definition TV sets, they'll be hooked up to equipment capable of playing HD content. We all know that PC games are some of the most pirated products in the world so a move away from PCs to consoles would benefit all the game companies. That's another argument for doing good PPC games over x86.

Regardless of the future of PC gaming, Apple, whose OS and software runs on both x86 and PPC, will finally have an edge in getting the latest games ported to their machines.

Yeah, there's really no substantive difference between big-endian and little-endian machines. I've worked on both, and the differences that do exist are really minor things that only matter to programmers, such as how easy it is to visually interpret memory dumps that you examine in a debugger. There's no real sense in which one is better than the other for games or audio.

That said, porting code from one byte-ordering to the other can be slightly awkward if it wasn't carefully written to be endian-agnostic to begin with. The challenges involved are minor.

I don't use my Mac for games. I use my PS2 or Xbox for games. Doom 3 runs great on Xbox. Why do I care how well it runs on a PC or Mac?

I'm a 3d Artist - I prefer Mac

Yeah he's a jerk and a sadist who who has no heart and probaly bullied little kids out of lunch money and he he needs prayer and professional help, but the fact is Job's switched, I feel used.

This is not really a surprise... I have an iMac G5 and I play World of Warcraft on it, slowly, at low res with the eye-candy turned off. However I still enjoyed it. But I wanted more so I upgraded my PC (yes, I own both) because PCs do make better GAMES machines.

I use the iMac for all my serious work because it is simply a better, less frustrating, safer experience.

I use my PC only for games, it is a TOY, that's what PCs are good for. Because I don't use it for email or serious web browsing it's vulnerability to viruses is reduced and even if it does get infected I can nuke it and re-build it, after all it is a TOY.

Mind you, WoW crashes frequently on the PC and I only ever had it crash once in 6 months on the Mac...

But for most applications they don't.

Sure, games run like a dog on my 1.4Ghz Mac, but it runs MS Office sweeter than my work PC (3Ghz, 1Mg ram), and I'd rather sit here typing in silence than listening to fan thunder while I run vi.

What's going to be really interesting is watching Apple fans try and justify what will still be 'underpowered' machines for their price - what with Jobs justifying the move in performance per watt, it's efficiency rather than speed that he's looking for - and the iMac, iBook and MacMini aren't going to have room for monster 3D cards.

And clothes are cheaper in WalMart too.

"we probably should have waited and ported the Xbox version of the game to the Mac, which would have played on a broader range of hardware. Of course, then we would have taken criticism for only giving the Mac community the 'crippled, cut down version'."

How very sensationalist.

Given the quality of code that id handed to Aspyr (Aspyr's assertion, not mine), who could say that it wouldn't have run just as badly, on top of being less pretty.

What John isn't saying is that the Mac talent left a while ago, and without Mr Devine working for them, their abilities to make the Mac sing are seriously compromised.

By "seriously compromised" I mean:

"about-as-good-as-your-average-PC-gaming-house-that-doesn't-directly-profit-from-a-Mac-version-other-than-throwing-some-unfinished-code-at-a-Mac-publisher-that-paid-in-advance".

Which is about as polite as I going to get.

Then why is Intel saying the exact same thing now? lol Why do you think there is no 4GHz P4 and Intel has come up with a whole new system for classifying chips?

--Spire

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Now that Apple is going to manufacture x86 PCs, we finally start seeing the true stories about how much faster the x86 is compared to the PPC. iLemmings give it up, you know you got conned by Steve's RDF that MHz doesn't matter.

Mac game performance could equal the PC if game developers used cross platform technologies and optimised for the hardware. Unfortuantely PC games are generally developed and optimised for Windows only technologies such as DirectX and X86 compilers rather than OpenGL and GCC.

Quake 3 which uses OpenGl was optimised for the Mac over time. The end result was it offered similar or better performance that comparible PC hardware.

Hopefully at some point the game industry will more toward platform independant technologies. In the mean time I personally will still game exclusively on the Mac as despite fps benchmark figures the overall experience is still better. I can one machine for all my needs not just gaming.

See this graph:

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/07/issue/datamine.asp?p=1

It's all consoles, really.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Now that Apple is going to manufacture x86 PCs, we finally start seeing the true stories about how much faster the x86 is compared to the PPC. iLemmings give it up, you know you got conned by Steve's RDF that MHz doesn't matter.

wait, so now you bash apple for switching to a processor that you have determined to be faster?

obviously apple is a company willing to adapt to the computing environment by having a cross platform operating system so they can switch between powerpc and x86 at will. tell me, can windows do that?

and as mentioned, the lack of optomized code and good compliers for mac is the only reason for slower mac games. in fact, powerpc chips are faster for games, if they were slower all the next generation consoles wouldn't be using them.

now that apple is switching to intel, microsoft is working on a version of virtual pc for the intel platform. this could easily run with no overhead and in real time. that means that you could play PC games directly on mac using virtual pc. even better, this means way more game companies will be porting games to mac, which will require little effort.

The presence of lots of AAA game titles on the Mac platform can only help bring switchers over. I like games as much as anybody, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a PeeCee just to play games. The more games we get, the better. If an intel based mac makes it possible to run some
pc games acceptably via emulation, so much the better. I do worry about the future of companies like Aspyr, and MacSoft, but they are both filled with lots of smart and talented people who are already producing cross plaform games.

If x86 is so much better for games, then why is Microsoft going to use PPC in their new Xbox?

It's a market size issue. PPC Macs from a technical basis should have been better than x86. However, there wasn't enough market to put the effort into getting the pieces optimized or to keep the PPC chips developing at the rate they should be. However, for a market the size of the Xbox 360, Microsoft and their hardware & software partners can afford to invest in the time necessary to squeeze the best performance out of the system.

PPC didn't lose out with Apple for being an inferior technology. IBM lost out with Apple for inferior implementation and delivery.

Haha, what a joke, sure joing a cult or something, or wait just go spend a lot of money doing almost nothing.

As for games, its a business and that means like even us consumers will do put more money on what makes money, or does anyone here actually like working for the loosing team, and not been able to pay the bills.

Sure you do.

As for the PPC been better, who cares, like most things a few percent points don't make for a better experience, so lets see what comes of this new mactel union.

The PPC used in xbox 360 is not the same that PPC used in G5 so it would not have made a difference, also xbox 360 programers will code for a box that is basically the same for the next what 3 to 5 years, not the same for computers.

So don't close your mind and think they are the same CPU.