A while ago there was a thread here about a Mac version of Civ V out of the box that the admins seem to have deleted. A large part of the discussion was about Firaxis' expected sales. We can revisit that discussion again now, because Valve has released some first data (http://store.steampowered.com/news/3837/) from Steam for the Mac (picked up at Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/05/mac-lags-windows-in-gaming-performance-excels-at-stability.ars)), and says:

[A]lready more than eleven percent of all Steam purchases are for the Mac

There is a bunch of stuff to remember when looking at that figure. On the one hand, there is going to be a lot of pent-up demand for Mac games which Valve as first-to-market is cashing in on. On the other hand, with all due respect to Killing Floor and such, what has been released so far for the Mac are not exactly the top games. Valve hasn't even begun to ship its own big sellers such as Left 4 Dead or the HalfLife series (Portal is being given away for free and shouldn't count towards the sales). Valve's "already" must be them hoping that this is just the beginning.

Obviously, I think this figure of more than eleven percent is a good indicator that it would be worth Firaxis' while to release a full Mac version -- and not some pathetically buggy "port" by a third party a year later like they did with Civ IV. Also, I see my arguments confirmed: That PC market share is a bad indicator for game companies, because it includes company computer that will never see a game; that Mac sales to private consumers have grown to the point where they translate to a small but serious demand for games; that Mac users on average have more disposable income.

Valve says it is going to make the Mac numbers part of its regular hardware survey (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey), so we'll be able to see if that elven precent holds.

While we're at it, there are some more interesting tidbits in the linked articles that people are going to talk about here anyway, so here's my 0.02 euros: Mac graphics are a lot slower: This is a known problem, and the next update of OS X is rumored to bring some major speed-ups. Valve seems confident this problem will go away, but be assured that for now it is very real. Macs are five times less likely to crash than Windows computers: Well, duh. This is what Apple is selling, the "it just works" part; also, Apple controls both hard- and software, OS X has an open-source core from the Unix family that has been battle-tested for decades, and there is no "mandatory additional" third-party software like AV to foul up the system. I'm surprised the difference isn't greater. Two thirds of all Mac users are running Steam on a laptop: Laptop sales are where growth is for all operating systems on this level, which is why publishers (including Firaxis with Civ V, if I've paid attention) are looking for sane hardware specs. That's good.

Remember, Firaxis: All it needs to be able to do is run on my i5 MacBook Pro. Natively, please.

I already play civ 4 on my Macbook, but I hate game prices on a mac, compared to a pc. I would love a mac version at launch.

I don't care about Mac version. I want a Linux version :)

Macs are the most reliable computers I have ever used, PCs just crash all the time. I'm sorry but thats what happened when I played on a PC. Maybe the storage system that handles all the folders or something is too large, I dont know because I'm not a computer expert. But I think there is a real difference in what PCs and Macs should be used for. PCs are for business, Macs are for recreation and home.

A while ago there was a thread here about a Mac version of Civ V out of the box that the admins seem to have deleted. A large part of the discussion was about Firaxis' expected sales. We can revisit that discussion again now, because Valve has released some first data (http://store.steampowered.com/news/3837/) from Steam for the Mac (picked up at Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/05/mac-lags-windows-in-gaming-performance-excels-at-stability.ars)), and says:

[A]lready more than eleven percent of all Steam purchases are for the Mac

There is a bunch of stuff to remember when looking at that figure. On the one hand, there is going to be a lot of pent-up demand for Mac games which Valve as first-to-market is cashing in on. On the other hand, with all due respect to Killing Floor and such, what has been released so far for the Mac are not exactly the top games. Valve hasn't even begun to ship its own big sellers such as Left 4 Dead or the HalfLife series (Portal is being given away for free and shouldn't count towards the sales). Valve's "already" must be them hoping that this is just the beginning.

Remember, Firaxis: All it needs to be able to do is run on my i5 MacBook Pro. Natively, please.

Valve wasn't first to market. Gamersgate has been doing Mac for at least 18 months now.

Valve is first to market on their own stuff though.

Sane specs are coming in for business reasons. It's a lot harder to sell copies of games when most people can't run it well.

Macs are reliable I must admit... and they have the advantage of not near as many virus and malware because they don't consist of any major considerable portion of the market share; therefore they are not aimed at to any extent by malicious individuals. For gaming, as was mentioned, Mac either has to wait for a bad port or not get the game at all. So as far as recreation, Mac is not 1st for gaming, but it is perhaps for photo albums.

Only time my PC has ever crashed to a BSOD is when a memory chip went bad (and perhaps another time from a strange Windows issue) in the last several years. Microsoft releases patches on a daily basis for Windows to fix all of it's flaws.

@dogdoo: Mac's have tiny little HDD's? It's common to have at least a 320 or 500GB nowadays even in substandard systems.

Most crashes on PCs are due to memory issues (which haven't been caused by Windows itself since the 9x line died), hardware incompatibility, or badly written/incompatible software. I have an XP computer that started getting random BSODs the moment a SecuROM-infected game was installed on it.

BTW, PCs don't require third-party AV since Microsoft Security Essentials was released. It's still a separate download though.

Oh boy this is going to turn into a war soon! My compaq died with in 3 years, but my old iMac G4 is still working after 9 years. I envy the fact that windows does more games though....

The Forum Moderators very rarely delete threads - if you can't find it, it's likely that your user controls are set to only show threads that have been active in the last [x] months.

but I hate game prices on a mac, compared to a pc.

With Steam you buy the PC version and get the Mac version included for free (and vice-versa).

With Steam you buy the PC version and get the Mac version included for free (and vice-versa).

Only if publisher allow it.

All games with Steam Play logo work this way.

it wasn't deleted - I moved it to computer talk after it went away from civ5 and degenerated into a mac vs. pc debate that was barely on-topic in Computer Talk and definitely had nothing to do with the game :mischief:

The thing with gaming on a mac is that most of them carry sub-par graphics chips and as such aren't very well suited to gaming. AFAIK only the iMacs, Macpros and the top specced Macbook pros have any sort of repsectable graphics muscle behind them, since they don't really have use for it due to a lack of games, and the loop goes on.

Another concern is the lack of DirectX support, which for some reason not known to me is more often than not preferred over OpenGL by devs. I think this choice is the thing that will decide whether or not it's going to be 'properly' released for Macs.

Macs are reliable I must admit... and they have the advantage of not near as many virus and malware because they don't consist of any major considerable portion of the market share; therefore they are not aimed at to any extent by malicious individuals. For gaming, as was mentioned, Mac either has to wait for a bad port or not get the game at all. So as far as recreation, Mac is not 1st for gaming, but it is perhaps for photo albums.

Only time my PC has ever crashed to a BSOD is when a memory chip went bad (and perhaps another time from a strange Windows issue) in the last several years. Microsoft releases patches on a daily basis for Windows to fix all of it's flaws.

@dogdoo: Mac's have tiny little HDD's? It's common to have at least a 320 or 500GB nowadays even in substandard systems.
There are no "viruses" for OS X, and the Mac Pro can hold 8TB HDD (soon to be 12TB) and my old super low end (as low as they make them) has 120GB (waiting for SSDs to come dowcome down)
The Forum Moderators very rarely delete threads - if you can't find it, it's likely that your user controls are set to only show threads that have been active in the last [x] months.
computer talk
The thing with gaming on a mac is that most of them carry sub-par graphics chips and as such aren't very well suited to gaming. AFAIK only the iMacs, Mac Pros and the top specced Macbook Pros have any sort of respectable graphics muscle behind them, since they don't really have use for it due to a lack of games, and the loop goes on.

Another concern is the lack of DirectX support, which for some reason not known to me is more often than not preferred over OpenGL by devs. I think this choice is the thing that will decide whether or not it's going to be 'properly' released for Macs.
The NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M is satisfactory, DirectX is a proprietary development by Microsoft

I would buy this game instantly if they release if for Mac, steam or no steam or whatever they do to it

There are no "viruses" for OS X

People who spout this do not understand what they are saying.

There are few viruses for OS X (http://www.atomicsub.net/2009/01/iwork-09-virus/) because nobody can be bothered to target them at the moment. Research suggests that Macs may have security issues to a similar degree as PCs. (http://hothardware.com/News/Macs-Less-Secure-From-Hackers-And-Viruses/)

You could get a virus tomorrow, and the only thing that's making that unlikely is the very thing you're trying to destroy - the obscurity of the platform.

Really? In my experience the Mac has always been more secure.

Macs are in fact a smaller share of the market about 11% last time I checked, but A) The Mac share of the market is growing while the Windows share is shrinking, B) Most of those Windows machines will never see a video game of any kind so the Mac share of the gaming market is much higher.

It has already been seen that many companies are releasing their games simultaneously for Mac and Windows.

XP machines are not bad.
I hate Vista and Windows 7 with a passion.
"The following programs have prevented your computer from shutting down: Shutdown manager":)
"Your computer is running slowly, you may want to close some of the following programs: Windows explorer."
As the joke goes "You seem to have a trojan called the Windows kernel"

Really? In my experience the Mac has always been more secure.

How are you measuring that?

Security is not about how often you get infected, it's about how easy it is to infect you.

I doubt you have the personal experience to judge that.

Yipeee... a mac vs. PC thread. What forum is complete without this?

I would jump on board to buy the Mac version. I just bought the Mac version of Civ IV Complete via Steam even though I own the PC version already. I just love being able to play on my iMac. It is slower. It is clunkier and buggier, but it plays on the Mac. That's what is important.

Make an iPad and iPod and iPhone vs. of Civ V to rule them all. I still play Civ IV on my phone now and then... it's not really Civ IV, but it is fun.

There are few viruses for OS X (http://www.atomicsub.net/2009/01/iwork-09-virus/) because nobody can be bothered to target them at the moment.

Dude, that's a link to a trojan that infected people who were a) criminals (using pirated software) and b) dumb as dirt (downloading stuff from unknown people on the Internet). Serves them right, but not to be compared to the situation with Windows computers, where innocent and careful people can infect their computers. As far as Google can tell, there are no (as in zero) viruses for Snow Leopard.

In the end, I don't care why there are no viruses, I'm just happy there are none, and I am very grateful to Microsoft for making sure that Windows 7 supports 8 out of 10 viruses (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/11/windows7/) so that their fruit stays low-hanging.

But we can discussion this all over the net. Let's stick to the question of an OS X port of Civ V -- the important things in life. I've submitted a question to the Steam FAQ that is in the works, so we'll see.

Dude, that's a link to a trojan that infected people who were a) criminals (using pirated software) and b) dumb as dirt (downloading stuff from unknown people on the Internet). Serves them right, but not to be compared to the situation with Windows computers, where innocent and careful people can infect their computers. As far as Google can tell, there are no (as in zero) viruses for Snow Leopard.

And the vast majority of windows viruses fall into the same category, but I don't see you so enthusiastic about jumping to point that out.

It is pretty much impossible to be infected in a fully patched version of windows 7 without falling into the above criteria.

In the end, I don't care why there are no viruses, I'm just happy there are none, and I am very grateful to Microsoft for making sure that Windows 7 supports 8 out of 10 viruses (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/11/windows7/) so that their fruit stays low-hanging.

You don't have to be very low hanging when the only other fruit on the tree is still pollen.

But we can discussion this all over the net. Let's stick to the question of an OS X port of Civ V -- the important things in life. I've submitted a question to the Steam FAQ that is in the works, so we'll see.

To be honest, I'm amazed it's not already on the books. Maybe development and testing deadlines make it difficult to do a simultaneous release, but I can't believe they have no plans.

I agree with all... Mac has been discriminated against by the software industry for long enough. It is about time that Firaxis is standing up for computers of all types (computer rights) and against the computer profiliing that has been going on for a long time.
:clap:

If you wish to debate Mac vs. PC in general: the Computer Talk subforum is a great place to go. If you wish to debate the possibility/chances/arguments for or against/desirability/whathaveyou of a Civ5 Mac release - this thread is good place for it.

Just goes to show more people use Macs than people think

I'd fully support a civ5 release for Mac. I just bought me a very nice 15 incher for this purpose alone! (oh and to get work done too.... right... right?)

Only if publisher allow it.

All games with Steam Play logo work this way.

True, but I think Steam is working very hard to make this the status quo.

Just goes to show more people use Macs than people think

most are american though, doesn't seem like macs are as popular anywhere else. perhaps it comes down to price or even maybe just the unavaliability of them. I'm not a fan and would never buy one, but they are certainly great alternatives for peoples needs and wants.

I don't understand why it has taken so long for game developers/publishers to get into that market.

I'll only buy Civ V if it's for Mac. My PC is too old to handle the game, and I'm not buying a new PC just to play civ. My Mac is my main computer, so that's what I want to use.

Anyone with a Mac Pro (with 4GB+ RAM)
Anyone with an Aluminum iMac
Anyone with a Unibody MacBook Pro

these people should be able to meet the minimum specs for Civ V

I only have a mac so I need the mac version. They better get it out asap damn it!

I think it is incredible that this could even be a discussion for a company. By not selling to the Mac audience they are limiting their revenue and pissing off a huge group of people. Add me to the list of people who would buy the game the first day it went on sale if given the option. If they decide Mac-users aren't worth their time, then we'll decide the franchise isn't worth our time.

Worth adding, there's a good reason Blizzard is as popular as it is (and largely considered the best gaming company on the planet)...and no, it's certainly not only because they release their games for PC and Mac simultaneously; it's because of their unrelenting support to their fanbase. For them, this discussion isn't debatable...it's common sense -- which is why they've reached the status they're at. So, I'll be playing Starcraft 2 through the summer and into the fall...whether or not I divide my time to play Civ 5 as well is entirely in the hands of Firaxis.

Most crashes on PCs are due to memory issues (which haven't been caused by Windows itself since the 9x line died), hardware incompatibility, or badly written/incompatible software. I have an XP computer that started getting random BSODs the moment a SecuROM-infected game was installed on it.

BTW, PCs don't require third-party AV since Microsoft Security Essentials was released. It's still a separate download though.

A faulty graphics card BSoD'd my computer into submission on a brand new laptop. Received a replacement...it works so smoothly.

I wanted to be critical of Windows 7...but I haven't had one issue since I got rid of my laptop with the faulty card on it. It's a lot better than XP IMO.

The first thing I noticed about Windows 7 is how much more OS X like it is than XP and in general it seems better than XP except it needs a lot more resources

Here (http://www.golem.de/1006/75897.html) is a german article about Civ5 @ the E3, and at the end it is written:
Civ 5 erscheint ausschließlich auf PC und Mac.

Which translates to:
Civ 5 will exclusivly be released for PC and Mac.

Couldn't find a confirmation for this until now, so i thought i should post it :).

*hops up and down ecstatically*

*Hugs The_J*

There are several obstacles to releasing a game like Civ5 on Macs.
-Civ uses DirectX for graphics, and macs use OpenGL. Firaxis would need to reprogram much of the game to use OpenGL.
-Most Macs have weak hardware that isn't powerful enough to run modern computer games.
-On identical hardware, OpenGL runs slower than DirectX. Using the weaker hardware that macs usually have, and OpenGL, means the graphics quality needs to be extremely poor for the game to run.

This is why when games do get released for Mac, it's usually a year or 2 late, giving the hardware a chance to catch up. Blizzard games are an exception because they have an enormous team to program for OpenGL as well as DirectX, and their games have poor graphics quality anyway.

There are several obstacles to releasing a game like Civ5 on Macs.
-Civ uses DirectX for graphics, and macs use OpenGL. Firaxis would need to reprogram much of the game to use OpenGL.
-Most Macs have weak hardware that isn't powerful enough to run modern computer games.
-On identical hardware, OpenGL runs slower than DirectX. Using the weaker hardware that macs usually have, and OpenGL, means the graphics quality needs to be extremely poor for the game to run.

This is why when games do get released for Mac, it's usually a year or 2 late, giving the hardware a chance to catch up. Blizzard games are an exception because they have an enormous team to program for OpenGL as well as DirectX, and their games have poor graphics quality anyway.

OpenGL is catching up

Weak? Maybe not the latest and greatest, but MacBook Pros and iMacs can wield i5s and i7s. Mac Pros wield at least Quad Xeons... When Apple releases the better drivers they will be up to par

Most Macs have weak hardware that isn't powerful enough to run modern computer games.

Huh? What exactly isn't powerful about an Intel i5 or i7? Dude, the days of the PowerPC are long over (except for Xbox users, of course). There is a reason they use MacPros to render movies.

Anyway, this is good to hear, thought it would be even better if Firaxis could give themselves a push and tell us themselves.

civ king wrote:
OpenGL is catching up

Weak? Maybe not the latest and greatest, but MacBook Pros and iMacs can wield i5s and i7s. Mac Pros wield at least Quad Xeons... When Apple releases the better drivers they will be up to par

What do processors have to do with graphics rendering? Short of being so slow that they bottleneck the graphics processor.

What do processors have to do with graphics rendering? Short of being so slow that they bottleneck the graphics processor.

All Macintoshes since Early 09 have graphics chips or cards, and they are all better than the new Intel integrated graphics

All Macintoshes since Early 09 have graphics chips or cards, and they are all better than the new Intel integrated graphics

Unfortunately, 'all macs bought in the past 16 months being able to run the game' isn't enough of a market for most game companies. A PC user with a 5 year old computer can spend $120 for a GPU that will run modern games on average settings, and a Mac user needs a whole new system.


There is a reason they use MacPros to render movies.

Macs haven't been used to do anything graphics or audio related in industry for years.


We could argue about the merits and demerits of Macs all day, but the reality is that Macs aren't designed to run games - which the software industry clearly recognizes. Maybe that will change in the next few years if OpenGL gets better and Apple consistently makes computers that have actual GPUs, but for now, you'll just have to wait a year or two for the Mac version to come out.

Unfortunately, 'all macs bought in the past 16 months being able to run the game' isn't enough of a market for most game companies. A PC user with a 5 year old computer can spend $120 for a GPU that will run modern games on average settings, and a Mac user needs a whole new system.




Macs haven't been used to do anything graphics or audio related in industry for years.


We could argue about the merits and demerits of Macs all day, but the reality is that Macs aren't designed to run games - which the software industry clearly recognizes. Maybe that will change in the next few years if OpenGL gets better and Apple consistently makes computers that have actual GPUs, but for now, you'll just have to wait a year or two for the Mac version to come out.

All MacBook Pros have enough power, Mac Pros, (intel) iMacs too
MacBooks and Mac minis, probably not

You know you can just buy a better graphics card for Macs right? Mac Pros can hold up to (IIRC) 2xRadeon 4870s, and iMacs can hold a Radeon 4870

Final Cut Pro is used in the Movie industry
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro#Major_films_edited_with_Final_Cut_Pr o)

Apple/Radeon/Nvidia are working on better video card drivers (Steam got them going)

Maybe that will change in the next few years if OpenGL gets better and Apple consistently makes computers that have actual GPUs, but for now, you'll just have to wait a year or two for the Mac version to come out.

Wow. Where have you been all year?

This is coming to you from a MacBook Pro with an i5-520M (dual core, four logical cores because of hyperthreading). It has two (in numbers: 2) GPUs: The first GPU is the on-die Intel HD graphics that is part of the CPU package, and uses so little power that I can confirm, to my own amazement, that Apple's usually inflated claims of battery time are true till at least till the eight-hour mark (Apple marketing claims up to ten hours). The second GPU is a NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M with 256 MByte GDDR3 RAM, an "actual GPU", as you put it. Depending on demand, OS X switches from one GPU to the other transparently.

As for the claim here that Macs aren't used in graphics or TV, let me quote the Wikipedia (my emphasis):

From the early 2000s, Final Cut Pro developed a large and expanding user base including many independent filmmakers. It has made inroads with film and television editors who have traditionally used Avid Technology's Media Composer. According to a 2007 SCRI study, Final Cut made up 49% of the US professional editing market, with Avid at 22%

As for waiting two or more years for OS X versions: The 90s are over. Blizzard of course has always released both versions in tandem, and you might have heard that Valve has ported Steam to the Mac. You can even check their statistics page (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/?platform=mac) to see what hardware the Mac users are coming to the board with. They have some info out on their initial experiences, like that a game is five times as likely to crash on a PC than on a Mac.

Also, and here we get to the point where you are correct, the games on Macs are slightly slower at the moment. This is not a hardware problem at all, but the result of Apple's drivers being optimized for stability instead of gaming. Apple and Valve are both working on this full throttle, and in a few months at most, this problem will be history in the same way the PowerPC chip and one button mouse are now. Currently, Valve has released Portal, HalfLife 2, and Team Fortress 2 for the Mac -- Wednesday is release day -- all games that are slightly older. P and HL2 run fine and fast and in native resolution on this MacBook Pro.

Where does this leave us with Firaxis? Well, at the moment, they are missing the trend. Industry sales for PC are deceptive, because the include sales to companies, computers which will never see a game in their life. Mac sales are beyond strong, which is one reason why Apple surpassed Microsoft in stock market valve a few weeks ago (don't know where they are now). Software development systems are to the point where creating both versions in parallel should be automatic -- Valve claims that each and every build spits out a Windows and OS X version. This is not rocket science.

On a more personal level, Civ V will be the only game left I am interested in that I would have to reboot for (L4D, L4D2 and Portal 2 are from Valve; StarCraft 2 and Diablo 3 are from Blizzard; Diablo 2 and Master of Orion 2 run on Windows in VirtualBox). Keeping a Windows partition around only for one single game is a lot to ask, especially if it turns out that my worries about Civ V are confirmed.

All MacBook Pros have enough power, Mac Pros, (intel) iMacs too
MacBooks and Mac minis, probably not

You know you can just buy a better graphics card for Macs right? Mac Pros can hold up to (IIRC) 2xRadeon 4870s, and iMacs can hold a Radeon 4870

Final Cut Pro is used in the Movie industry
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro#Major_films_edited_with_Final_Cut_Pr o)

Apple/Radeon/Nvidia are working on better video card drivers (Steam got them going)
Hey, my Macbook is running quiet a few games, all at highest possible settings. BTW does anybody really know the requirements?

I can't imagine that any recent mac wouldn't be able to run CiV at pretty high settings, if not the highest settings. While it remains true that mac can't touch PCs for gaming at the bleeding edge of gaming performance, CiV will be *far* from bleeding edge (or even the cutting edge).

So mac owners who are primarily interested in CiV should be fine.

Hey, my Macbook is running quiet a few games, all at highest possible settings. BTW does anybody really know the requirements?

If Civ V is coming out on Steam for Mac, then I don't think we really have to worry about it. Unless you have an older Mac. I just bought mine last August/September, so I'm fairly confidant mine can handle it.

If Civ V is coming out on Steam for Mac, then I don't think we really have to worry about it. Unless you have an older Mac. I just bought mine last August/September, so I'm fairly confidant mine can handle it.
pretty cool eh?

Well if Steam is as important as they say then it certainly saves time

OpenGL is catching up

Weak? Maybe not the latest and greatest, but MacBook Pros and iMacs can wield i5s and i7s. Mac Pros wield at least Quad Xeons... When Apple releases the better drivers they will be up to par

turns out the Mac Pros (essentially) have one or two i7s

Apple has released its quarterly results (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/07/20results.html), and guess what (my emphasis):

Apple sold 3.47 million Macs during the quarter, representing a new quarterly record and a 33 percent unit increase over the year-ago quarter.

Ah, another quarter with double-digit growth. You will remember the link in a different thread that desktop penetration has now reached ten percent and is climbing further. Not only does this prove that Truth and Beauty win in the end, it also shows (again) that Firaxis is making a big mistake not providing a Mac version out of the box.

I might have mentioned that a couple of times before. But don't worry, once StarCraft 2 is out in a few days, I probably won't be spending that much time here anymore -- you see, Blizzard produces the OS X version in parallel. As does Valve, by the way.

C'mon, Firaxis, this sort of thing is not high on the tech tree any more. We don't want a late, crappy port. We want it directly from the source.

I dunno about completely native, a properly done port could use regular mods

Some more numbers on Macs, showing why Firaxis is making a very big mistake by not giving us an OS X version of Civ V right from the beginning and out of the box:

http://www.tuaw.com/2010/08/05/mac-usage-surges-amongst-university-of-virginia-freshmen/

"According to the University of Virginia's Information Technology and Communication (ITC), which services the IT needs for most of the campus, 43 percent of first-year students at its residence halls during 2009 were using a Mac."

Take a look at the graph to see the trend that Valve decided they wanted to be part of when they released Steam for OS X and Firaxis is missing. I'd say college students are one of the primary target demographics for a games company.

I prefer PCs, and being a computer geek, know how to use and maintain one, so mine runs beautifully.

I've worked with and done support for Macs and anyone who thinks Macs don't get viruses or have hardware or software issues is living in a dream world.

It's nice that there's variety so different types of users can get the computer that suits them.

PC games are expensive to create and for anything that's not a sure hit they're risky to create from a financial standpoint. So, if you're creating games, you are going to create for the platform with 89% share, not the platform with 11% (if using those steam figures, keeping in mind that Steam is hardly measuring everything, all knowing, all inclusive, but the fact is that gaming on Macs overall is nowhere near as huge as on PCs). For most game devs, spending the extra money to create a Mac version and hoping it pays for itself is probably statistically a bad investment.

For most game devs, spending the extra money to create a Mac version and hoping it pays for itself is probably statistically a bad investment.

Only for those who don't have the right tools set up. The trick is to develop both games in sync at the same time (Valve, Blizzard) instead of doing it the 80s way: Write a game for the PC and then port it.

Curse you all, stop bickering! The thing I need to know is if it could run through CrossOver on my MacBook 13"!

I prefer PCs, and being a computer geek, know how to use and maintain one, so mine runs beautifully.

I've worked with and done support for Macs and anyone who thinks Macs don't get viruses or have hardware or software issues is living in a dream world.

It's nice that there's variety so different types of users can get the computer that suits them.

PC games are expensive to create and for anything that's not a sure hit they're risky to create from a financial standpoint. So, if you're creating games, you are going to create for the platform with 89% share, not the platform with 11% (if using those steam figures, keeping in mind that Steam is hardly measuring everything, all knowing, all inclusive, but the fact is that gaming on Macs overall is nowhere near as huge as on PCs). For most game devs, spending the extra money to create a Mac version and hoping it pays for itself is probably statistically a bad investment.

and if you could spend under $200,000 to hit that last 11%?

Seriously, though, is anybody using CrossOver to game? How about CrossOver to run PC games through Steam. I don't want to waste HD space on Windows (actually I don't have it to spare--can you Boot Camp from an external HD?).

I just got one of the new 13" Pros and I do NOT want to wait for the Mac port in 2012.

Yes, you can bootcamp via external, Crossover Games had really good support for Civ IV, also Western Digital has 1TB 2.5" drives

I would buy this game instantly if they release if for Mac, steam or no steam or whatever they do to it

What he said.

Apple has released its quarterly results (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/07/20results.html), and guess what (my emphasis):

Apple sold 3.47 million Macs during the quarter, representing a new quarterly record and a 33 percent unit increase over the year-ago quarter.

Ah, another quarter with double-digit growth. You will remember the link in a different thread that desktop penetration has now reached ten percent and is climbing further. Not only does this prove that Truth and Beauty win in the end, it also shows (again) that Firaxis is making a big mistake not providing a Mac version out of the box.

I might have mentioned that a couple of times before. But don't worry, once StarCraft 2 is out in a few days, I probably won't be spending that much time here anymore -- you see, Blizzard produces the OS X version in parallel. As does Valve, by the way.

C'mon, Firaxis, this sort of thing is not high on the tech tree any more. We don't want a late, crappy port. We want it directly from the source.

Do you really want apple to hold the majority share? From my experience the compaines that control the market loose the inovation and dedication that got them there in the first place. As a mac user I'd be quite happy if Apple never increased their market share. I dont want them to become the next Microsoft......

Do you really want apple to hold the majority share? From my experience the compaines that control the market loose the inovation and dedication that got them there in the first place. As a mac user I'd be quite happy if Apple never increased their market share. I dont want them to become the next Microsoft......

one of the mixed bags about Apple is it doesn't give a damn what others think

one of the mixed bags about Apple is it doesn't give a damn what others think

I'd swap 'Apple' in your statement for 'Steve Jobs', but other then that, I agree.

Nah, I think that statement applies very much to Apple in general. I work here in Silicon Valley and interact with Apple people quite a lot. When I was working at Panasonic (which supplies parts to Apple), all the Apple engineers we had to deal with were pretty infamous for being arrogant jerks.

As with any generalization, there are always exceptions, but...

Nah, I think that statement applies very much to Apple in general. I work here in Silicon Valley and interact with Apple people quite a lot. When I was working at Panasonic (which supplies parts to Apple), all the Apple engineers we had to deal with were pretty infamous for being arrogant jerks.

As with any generalization, there are always exceptions, but...

In the US Money=Power and Power=Ego, Apple has massive amounts of Money so follow the logic

Macs haven't been used to do anything graphics or audio related in industry for years.

There is quite literally a room full of graphic designers on macs behind me who would disagree. They are all very new macs as well.

There is quite literally a room full of graphic designers on macs behind me who would disagree. They are all very new macs as well.It's true, Macs are still widely used for graphics design and a lot of video editing/production.

Not so much for games though. :D

It's true, Macs are still widely used for graphics design and a lot of video editing/production.

Not so much for games though. :D

Valve and Blizzard are working on that, with great results, I might add. It would be nice if Firaxis were to wake up and join the party.

Macs account for 5% of the market share in computers, and the percentage of gamers among Mac users is lower than among other computer users. I'm curious how you define "great results."

Some more numbers on Macs, showing why Firaxis is making a very big mistake by not giving us an OS X version of Civ V right from the beginning and out of the box:

http://www.tuaw.com/2010/08/05/mac-usage-surges-amongst-university-of-virginia-freshmen/

"According to the University of Virginia's Information Technology and Communication (ITC), which services the IT needs for most of the campus, 43 percent of first-year students at its residence halls during 2009 were using a Mac."

Take a look at the graph to see the trend that Valve decided they wanted to be part of when they released Steam for OS X and Firaxis is missing. I'd say college students are one of the primary target demographics for a games company.

Is this cherry-picked evidence? Or have you honestly never seen a situation where there was not such a trend? Who knows... Maybe a Mac store opened on campus in 2004, offered generous rebates and improved their sales/marketing strategies very well over the next few years. I've seen Mac stores on campus at other unis, and it doesn't surprise me considering how attractive that target audience is to Mac.

In any case, it seems a bit of a stretch to claim Firaxis are making a big mistake because a heap of people at University of Virginia bought a Mac.

EDIT...
Consider...
What is it, roughly 15million OSX users worldwide?
As of June 2010, there are over 41.7 million Xbox 360 consoles worldwide.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360
As for Windows, just win7 alone has reached in the hundreds of millions, right? Adding XP and Vista I wonder how much that'd be.

It's true, Macs are still widely used for graphics design and a lot of video editing/production.

Not so much for games though. :D

Only in America!

Who in the right mind would buy a mac for their bussiness in europe?

Computer World, August 2; "Microsoft's Windows 7 reached a major milestone in July, while Apple's Mac OS X lost ground for the fourth straight month, a Web analytics firm Net Applications said Sunday. " (http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=32896C49-1A64-6A71-CED8AF699C57ADA7)

"Meanwhile, Net Applications reported that Apple's OS X recorded its fourth consecutive month of share decline in July, losing nearly two-tenths of a percentage point, the largest single-month drop in over a year and a half.

Since the beginning of 2010, Mac OS X has lost share in five of seven months. It now stands at 5%, the same number as in February 2010 and off the operating system's peak of 5.3% in October 2009, the month Microsoft debuted Windows 7.

Net Applications' numbers don't equate to sales -- two weeks ago Apple reported it sold a record 3.5 million Macs in the second quarter -- but they do show that Windows 7 is fueling an even bigger PC sales boom relative to last year's usage share standings. Windows 7, for example, now powers three times the number of machines than does Mac OS X."

Steam's OS breakdown show similar numbers: Mac OS accounts for almost exactly 5% of users. And this is on Valve's Mac-friendly service, so it does not accurately reflect the total gaming population.

Macs are the most reliable computers I have ever used, PCs just crash all the time. I'm sorry but thats what happened when I played on a PC. Maybe the storage system that handles all the folders or something is too large, I dont know because I'm not a computer expert. But I think there is a real difference in what PCs and Macs should be used for. PCs are for business, Macs are for recreation and home.

PCs crash, so they should be used for business.

Wait, what?

Macs account for 5% of the market share in computers, and the percentage of gamers among Mac users is lower than among other computer users. I'm curious how you define "great results."

My "great results" just means that StarCraft 2 and the Valve Steam games (those released so far) run perfectly on OS X. I'd like to have this experience with Civ V, too. This would be the last game I would have to dual boot for, and I'm so sick and tired of that, it would simply get played less. Anyway, you might want to read the earlier entries in this thread, because we've been through this all before. The tl;dr version:

1. The "five percent market share" refers to all PCs sold, including those that go to companies that will never, ever see a game in their life (except for Minesweeper). When discussing the target markets for game companies, this number is useless and misleading.

2. Far more interesting are other trends (http://www.tuaw.com/2010/08/05/mac-usage-surges-amongst-university-of-virginia-freshmen/) (link shows data from one college where 43 percent of freshmen now use Macs) that are more relevant to the target audience. Blizzard and Valve are both following that trend with their parallel releases of OS X and Windows games (in StarCraft 2, they are on the same DVD). A good manager recognizes trends when they begin (or even before), instead of playing catch-up.

To be fair, Firaxis started off with Civ V in what, 2007? Since then growth rate of Mac sales has been accelerating, so you can see why a manager who wasn't paying too much attention to the market might have said "nah, let's go PC only". The continued silence of Firaxis about an OS X version could mean that they have realized their mistake and are doing something frantic in the back room.

I certainly hope so. The port of Civ IV to the Mac was pure crap -- I ended up buying the PC version, too -- and it does look silly to release something on Steam in September 2010 and not have a Mac version.

1. The "five percent market share" refers to all PCs sold, including those that go to companies that will never, ever see a game in their life (except for Minesweeper). When discussing the target markets for game companies, this number is useless and misleading.
So is one statistic from one class (i.e. freshmen) from one university from one country. Useless.

So is one statistic from one class (i.e. freshmen) from one university from one country. Useless.

Well, unless you happen to be the guy selling those Macs in Virginia (or not selling those Windows computers), and the guy across the street from campus suddenly trying to sell PC games to Mac users.

Pure statistics are a wonderful science, but in the real world, you don't sit around waiting for the numbers to add up. Doctors have something called "intent to treat" that means if you only can heal one person out of ten with a new drug, you don't really care what the result of a larger, more precise trial would be (unless there are special factors, of course). In business, you look for "trends" to give you the jump on the competition before those numbers are good enough for a hard statistic.

In this case, you might want to take a look at the growth rate of Mac sales in the last years, too -- about a 33 percent increase per quarter, if I remember correctly. I'm calling a trend here, and so are Valve and Blizzard, and, oh yeah, as is the stock market. Apple is now worth more than Microsoft (though that might have changed again by now).

You are of course free to call bull, as Firaxis seems to be doing. We'll know in a few months or years who was right.

Considering the popularity of products like the ipod and iphone, it doesn't surprise me Apple are very profitable. I didn't try to claim otherwise, btw. Does that mean game developers should put the effort into prioritising an OSX release for a game when OSX has a small market share? It doesn't seem to me that the popularity of the iphone and ipod makes the answer to the question just asked obvious.

By the way, can you please cite your source with the 33% per quarter figure? What is the increase per quarter for non-Mac sales? One would guess that in general the sales of computers is rising, so it would be only natural for some of the Mac figure to be from that.

So I don't feel like I'm calling bull on anything. I'm just saying I don't see a case for Firaxis making a big mistake here. Windows can be installed on a Mac, so people with a Mac who want to play civ5 still can, provided they have the necessary hardware.

By the way, can you please cite your source with the 33% per quarter figure? What is the increase per quarter for non-Mac sales?

http://www.neowin.net/news/apple-q2-2010-earnings-mac-sales-up-33-and-iphone-up-131

For example.

I guess we'll just have to wait. Now excuse me for a few hours while I go play StarCraft 2 on my Mac ...

Apple lost me during Vista.

If theres one thing I absolutely hate, it's hostile advertising. Instead of spending all those millions on those annoying "I'm a mac, and i'm a PC" ads slamming Vista (even if it was a terrible OS) they should have promoted the benefits of OS X.

Is this cherry-picked evidence? Or have you honestly never seen a situation where there was not such a trend? Who knows... Maybe a Mac store opened on campus in 2004, offered generous rebates and improved their sales/marketing strategies very well over the next few years. I've seen Mac stores on campus at other unis, and it doesn't surprise me considering how attractive that target audience is to Mac.

In any case, it seems a bit of a stretch to claim Firaxis are making a big mistake because a heap of people at University of Virginia bought a Mac.

EDIT...
Consider...
What is it, roughly 15million OSX users worldwide?
As of June 2010, there are over 41.7 million Xbox 360 consoles worldwide.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360
As for Windows, just win7 alone has reached in the hundreds of millions, right? Adding XP and Vista I wonder how much that'd be.

http://www.cultofmac.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/mac_users.jpg
yes, only 15 million...

With all the back and fro, why not just check Steam's statistics and post them


Windows XP 32 bit 32.73% -0.26%
Windows 7 64 bit 28.24% +1.59%
Windows Vista 32 bit 13.71% -0.30%
Windows 7 12.42% +0.35%
Windows Vista 64 bit 6.72% -0.03%
MacOS 10.6.3 64 bit 4.30% -1.01%
MacOS 10.5.8 64 bit 0.77% -0.26%
Windows XP 64 bit 0.56% 0.00%
Windows 2003 64 bit 0.31% -0.01%
Other 0.23% +0.05%

That's for July. Those numbers are what they are. Which means "crappy" Vista outmasses OSX by itself.
Steam obviously is not the entirety of the market for games (well maybe for OSX, I don't know) but it is a sure indicator that Mac made a very minor splash rather than a deep impact.
It's a market worth capturing, I guess. But you run on intel chips now boys..So developers know if you want a game badly enough...you can run Windows.

That's for July. Those numbers are what they are. Which means "crappy" Vista outmasses OSX by itself.

Your argument itself is rather "crappy", when you consider how long Steam has been available for Windows compared to OSX. We're talking years versus months.

I'm curious though, Steam doesn't track 10.6.4, or at least your post doesn't show the stats for 10.6.4. Could the decrease in .3 users because they upgraded to .4?

http://www.cultofmac.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/mac_users.jpg
yes, only 15 million...

What exactly does active users mean? Can you please point me again to the source of that chart? (EDIT... nvm, found it: here (http://www.cultofmac.com/wwdc-mac-users-triple-in-last-2-years-to-75-mill/11492)) Steam apparently claims 25 million active accounts. That doesn't mean 25 million people use Steam on a regular basis. I'm pretty sure WoW does a similar thing (counting inactive accounts as WoW players) but it's been a while since I've looked at their stats.

EDIT
Now that I found the source...
It's according to Phil Schiller. Is there any independent source who can confirm the accuracy of the claims? Do Apple publicly publish those sorts of stats somewhere other than as headlines for big events? I haven't yet seen anyone else claim anywhere near 75 million users who isn't referring to that particular source.

If I learnt anything from Al Gore's colourful film, it's that pretty charts don't mean much by themselves.

Is there any independent source who can confirm the accuracy of the claims? [...] I haven't yet seen anyone else claim anywhere near 75 million users who isn't referring to that particular source.

Mr. Schiller was speaking as a company rep on the record. Which means it was official -- the financial press, industry analysts, owners of Apple stock, the SEC, everybody was listening. It had better be true, or he is going to be in a whole lot of trouble. And I'm sure Microsoft has a whole room full of people whose job in life is to go over Apple press releases and look for things to attack. If this were bogus, we'd have heard about it by now.

Anyway, the number itself is not that interesting. It is the trend, which is up, up, up. This dovetails nicely with that other graph from the university in Virginia, and the sudden interest of computer games companies in OS X.

Well, at least those companies that are not Firaxis ...

I'm curious though, Steam doesn't track 10.6.4, or at least your post doesn't show the stats for 10.6.4. Could the decrease in .3 users because they upgraded to .4?

Remember that 10.6.4 has a broken graphics driver, and that Valve is telling people to stay the hell away from it (see here). So at least some 10.6.4 users will be staying away from Steam at the moment. Since most OS X users allow the auto-update (just like Microsoft users), the 10.6.3 will be the hard-core gamers that reinstalled 10.6 all over again and then stopped there, or those too lazy to patch.

In other words, this is not the best time for Mac stats on Steam. Wait till 10.6.5 is out, and then we can (hopefully) try again.

Personally, I'm not on Steam either, because I'm too busy playing StarCraft 2. Does Blizzard have the Mac numbers for Battle.Net out? They've been supporting Macs for ever.

No way you will see more MAC users than PC....

But than again its still a profit non the less... i think what kills MAC support is DX11

Mr. Schiller was speaking as a company rep on the record. Which means it was official -- the financial press, industry analysts, owners of Apple stock, the SEC, everybody was listening. It had better be true, or he is going to be in a whole lot of trouble. And I'm sure Microsoft has a whole room full of people whose job in life is to go over Apple press releases and look for things to attack. If this were bogus, we'd have heard about it by now.
In short, no... no one else can confirm it.

The question is not whether or not he's lying but what on Earth "active OS X users" means. For all we know, they could be inflating the figures by doing things like counting computers in schools, counting multiple users on one computer (maybe even separating admin and owner) or counting different versions of OS X that one person is using. My point is that the figures are hard to believe without seeing evidence or explanation of methodology.

The fact Microsoft hasn't claimed they're wrong doesn't prove they are accurate.

It's funny, by the way, that you accuse Microsoft of having a "dirt division". When I browse on youtube through some of Apple's advertising that American's are subjected to, it's hard not to come to that inclusion of Apple. ;)
Anyway, the number itself is not that interesting. It is the trend, which is up, up, up. This dovetails nicely with that other graph from the university in Virginia, and the sudden interest of computer games companies in OS X.

Well, at least those companies that are not Firaxis ...

I bet the trend of Windows users is up, up, up as well. Guess what, the human population on the planet is on the up, up, up too.

Isn't it more important to look at what trend their market share has?

I don't see why anyone's so incredulous about the usage figures. I mean, go to a college class for Pete's sake. In my last grad class last semester there were eleven of us and five of us had Macbooks. The PC installed base is inflated by office computers, whereas the base of personal Mac OSX users is growing tremendously.

And yeah, market share is a good indicator, and it also shows that Mac users are growing by almost any calculation. Now, Mac is nowhere near the Windows base or the Windows sales at home or abroad, so does it make sense for a game maker with limited resources to neglect that side of the market? Sure. But the whole PC games market doesn't have much of a prospect anyway. Apple doesn't care because they're moving tons of games on the iOS and more people are playing on smaller devices than on PC's these days anyway. (I'll admit, I'm too lazy to look up a statistic for that.)

With all the back and fro, why not just check Steam's statistics and post them


Windows XP 32 bit 32.73% -0.26%
Windows 7 64 bit 28.24% +1.59%
Windows Vista 32 bit 13.71% -0.30%
Windows 7 12.42% +0.35%
Windows Vista 64 bit 6.72% -0.03%
MacOS 10.6.3 64 bit 4.30% -1.01%
MacOS 10.5.8 64 bit 0.77% -0.26%
Windows XP 64 bit 0.56% 0.00%
Windows 2003 64 bit 0.31% -0.01%
Other 0.23% +0.05%

That's for July. Those numbers are what they are. Which means "crappy" Vista outmasses OSX by itself.
Steam obviously is not the entirety of the market for games (well maybe for OSX, I don't know) but it is a sure indicator that Mac made a very minor splash rather than a deep impact.
It's a market worth capturing, I guess. But you run on intel chips now boys..So developers know if you want a game badly enough...you can run Windows.
1) It doesn't show how many run Windows on Macs?
2) Steam has been on Mac less than half a year, Windows on the other hand...
Your argument itself is rather "crappy", when you consider how long Steam has been available for Windows compared to OSX. We're talking years versus months.

I'm curious though, Steam doesn't track 10.6.4, or at least your post doesn't show the stats for 10.6.4. Could the decrease in .3 users because they upgraded to .4?
10.6.4 screws over drivers
What exactly does active users mean? Can you please point me again to the source of that chart? (EDIT... nvm, found it: here (http://www.cultofmac.com/wwdc-mac-users-triple-in-last-2-years-to-75-mill/11492)) Steam apparently claims 25 million active accounts. That doesn't mean 25 million people use Steam on a regular basis. I'm pretty sure WoW does a similar thing (counting inactive accounts as WoW players) but it's been a while since I've looked at their stats.

EDIT
Now that I found the source...
It's according to Phil Schiller. Is there any independent source who can confirm the accuracy of the claims? Do Apple publicly publish those sorts of stats somewhere other than as headlines for big events? I haven't yet seen anyone else claim anywhere near 75 million users who isn't referring to that particular source.

If I learnt anything from Al Gore's colourful film, it's that pretty charts don't mean much by themselves.
probably by number of Macs wanting updates
No way you will see more MAC users than PC....

But than again its still a profit non the less... i think what kills MAC support is DX11
:wallbash: it's "Mac" not "MAC"!
In short, no... no one else can confirm it.

The question is not whether or not he's lying but what on Earth "active OS X users" means. For all we know, they could be inflating the figures by doing things like counting computers in schools, counting multiple users on one computer (maybe even separating admin and owner) or counting different versions of OS X that one person is using. My point is that the figures are hard to believe without seeing evidence or explanation of methodology.

The fact Microsoft hasn't claimed they're wrong doesn't prove they are accurate.

It's funny, by the way, that you accuse Microsoft of having a "dirt division". When I browse on youtube through some of Apple's advertising that American's are subjected to, it's hard not to come to that inclusion of Apple. ;)


I bet the trend of Windows users is up, up, up as well. Guess what, the human population on the planet is on the up, up, up too.

Isn't it more important to look at what trend their market share has?
1) probably by number of Macs wanting updates
2) Most large companies have "dirt divisions"
3) What are the odds that Microsoft counts business machine in market share? And what are the odds that business machines have a bigger portion of the market than Apple does?

It's funny, by the way, that you accuse Microsoft of having a "dirt division". When I browse on youtube through some of Apple's advertising that American's are subjected to, it's hard not to come to that inclusion of Apple. ;)

Huh? Of course Apple will have a dirt division. This is business. Every large corporation will have dirt division, though they probably call it something nicer like "PR Department" or "Internal Revenue Service".

As I mentioned someplace upstream of this thread, we'll just have to wait and see what Firaxis does. And how the Mac market develops further.

1) It doesn't show how many run Windows on Macs?
2) Steam has been on Mac less than half a year, Windows on the other hand...



I'll say it only once..everybody now. A "Mac" is a PC sold by Apple as a way to lock people into their "garden", that being OSX.

The moment you use Windows it ceases to be anything other than just another Wintel box, albeit a pretty (and massively overpriced) one.

As for point 2 if Mac gamers are crying out for games and there were lots of them then......... would not Steam have seen a massive influx of them ?

Nothing personal here, I simply am trying to understand how a box of chips can install such rabid devotion ?

Nothing personal here, I simply am trying to understand how a box of chips can install such rabid devotion ?

Have you ever tried one :)? They tend to be habit-forming. Sort of like Civ, actually. Except you don't get to nuke Gandhi.

When it comes down to it, a Mac just works, in the way that neither a Windows nor a Linux computer just works. And that is sort of all, at least for me. I agree that it is sad that something that simple should be that great, because the computers are far from perfect, but there you go.

(Actually, computers are not the machines I feel most strongly about. Not by far. It's vacuum sweepers. Yes, vacuum sweepers. When I saw the price of our first Dyson, I almost cried. My parents and various friends of the family who already had one urged me to be strong, to take the leap. My wife held my hand when we bought it. Today, there is no way we are going to buy any other brand. The difference is unbelievable, amazing, really on an OMG level. We can discuss operating systems, but don't even try to talk to me about other vacuum sweepers.)

I'll say it only once..everybody now. A "Mac" is a PC sold by Apple as a way to lock people into their "garden", that being OSX.

The moment you use Windows it ceases to be anything other than just another Wintel box, albeit a pretty (and massively overpriced) one.

As for point 2 if Mac gamers are crying out for games and there were lots of them then......... would not Steam have seen a massive influx of them ?

Nothing personal here, I simply am trying to understand how a box of chips can install such rabid devotion ?

Yes, a Mac is a personal computer designed by Apple that never has compatibility problems or driver issues,

When you subtract sale value in three years versus equivalent Dell/HP/Whoever they aren't overpriced, for example the 27" iMac which happens to come with a $1000 professional monitor and you can sell it three years later for $1,500 meaning you only spent $500 on it so cost per day is $0.46! Definitely overpriced!

considering they make up ~11% of sales I'd say they are buying

I don't care about Mac version. I want a Linux version :)

Can't believe this got ignored but I second this motion.

Doesn't really matter though. I'm sure within 6 months of release, Wine will be updated to run civ 5 about as well as it currently can run civ 4.

Have fun with your pricey software/spyware/viruses/invasions of privacy/inability to fully customize your system/drains on ram by your operating system PC and Mac users.

Can't believe this got ignored but I second this motion.

Doesn't really matter though. I'm sure within 6 months of release, Wine will be updated to run civ 5 about as well as it currently can run civ 4.

Have fun with your pricey software/spyware/viruses/invasions of privacy/inability to fully customize your system/drains on ram by your operating system PC and Mac users.

Thanks! Have fun waiting.

I'll say it only once..everybody now. A "Mac" is a PC sold by Apple as a way to lock people into their "garden", that being OSX.

The moment you use Windows it ceases to be anything other than just another Wintel box, albeit a pretty (and massively overpriced) one.

As for point 2 if Mac gamers are crying out for games and there were lots of them then......... would not Steam have seen a massive influx of them ?

Nothing personal here, I simply am trying to understand how a box of chips can install such rabid devotion ?

I don't see how a Mac running Windows suddenly becomes "just another" Wintel box. I mean, it clearly is doing something the Wintel boxes don't. And by something, I mean running OS X, consistently rated the best operating system available for home computers. And unlike those other Wintel boxes, if it does catch one of those annoying viruses in its Windows systems, that whole partition can be deleted without affecting its real system. Not "just" another Wintel box, I'd say.

They are pretty, very pretty. The aesthetic quality suffuses the experience. That's what instill such devotion. We use machines all the time. How they behave, including how pretty they are, is a part of how we experience them and when they're this central to how we live and work, that matters. The elegance of Macs is a factor in what makes them superior, in our estimation. So, yes, the pretty does matter--in addition to the greater stability, the top-rated customer support, and the ease of use.

Now, I'll admit to not having worked with Windows 7; I understand they've tried really hard to close the gap with Mac OS X, so maybe it's as aesthetically agreeable as using a Mac now, I don't know.

And these days, I just don't care. No matter how well Windows now imitates Mac, I'll stick with the original.

So anyway, about Civ 5.

I really, really want to play on September 21st on my new Macbook Pro 13". I don't have room to partition this drive, but I've got an external one. Can I still run parallels from an external drive? I would really rather not reboot. Also, where can I get a copy of XP service pack 3?

Or, somebody will more experience trying this please give me your two cents, do you think it's possible that crossover will run the sucker right out of the box?

Yes, a Mac is a personal computer designed by Apple that never has compatibility problems or driver issues,

Of course any machine will not have compatibility problems if you only allow hardware and software that is compatible.

http://guides.macrumors.com/List:Applications_Not_Compatible_with_Leopard

a LOT of the reason for fewer driver issues is that traditionally, Macs are purchased as a single unit and not often upgraded. (I think the only place around that sells stuff for Macs here outside of complete systems is actually the Apple store...or the internet, obviously)

Roughly half or more of the Vista problems was it not liking old hardware - massive driver failure. Never upgrade to a Windows OS. Install the new one when you buy a new motherboard after it's release.

I know boot camp removes the inability to run non-mac games but i'd see myself getting lazy and just staying in windows there.

I don't see how a Mac running Windows suddenly becomes "just another" Wintel box. I mean, it clearly is doing something the Wintel boxes don't. And by something, I mean running OS X, consistently rated the best operating system available for home computers.

If you're running Windows, you're not running OSX. Sure, you have the option of booting into OSX, but if you're not using OSX, that Mac isn't really any different from another Windows machine.

I'd love to see your sources on OSX being "consistently rated the best operating system available for home computers".

And unlike those other Wintel boxes, if it does catch one of those annoying viruses in its Windows systems, that whole partition can be deleted without affecting its real system. Not "just" another Wintel box, I'd say.

This is a meaningless argument. If you have two partitions, each with its own operating system, of course you can wipe one with the other. I can do that with Windows. I can do that with Linux. It's not something that's 'special' to OSX, although it does seem like Macs are more likely to have a Windows partition. You ever think about why that is? Here's a hint: it's probably because the user wants to do something that they can't do in OSX.

They are pretty, very pretty. The aesthetic quality suffuses the experience. That's what instill such devotion. We use machines all the time. How they behave, including how pretty they are, is a part of how we experience them and when they're this central to how we live and work, that matters. The elegance of Macs is a factor in what makes them superior, in our estimation.

So you like things pretty. That's great. Myself, I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice some visual quality for performance. I don't see computers as interactive works of art, so I guess I'm not missing out on much.

Your choice of pronouns in this paragraph is unusual. Who is the 'we' and 'our' you're referring to? Do you claim to speak for everyone who uses a Mac?

So, yes, the pretty does matter--in addition to the greater stability, the top-rated customer support, and the ease of use.

Yeah, those three qualities are a lot easier to manage when the hardware specifications are carefully locked down. Of course, it also means that you're probably going to run into a lot of problems if you try to use your Mac other than intended - such as gaming, for example. Apple's been getting better about it, but they're still not quite all there.

Now, I'll admit to not having worked with Windows 7; I understand they've tried really hard to close the gap with Mac OS X, so maybe it's as aesthetically agreeable as using a Mac now, I don't know.

First thing I did after installing Windows 7 was to make it look like Windows 95/98, so I can't really answer how the aesthetics compares to a Mac. Personally, I find all the context-sensitive stuff more of a hindrance than a help when it comes to getting things done.

And these days, I just don't care. No matter how well Windows now imitates Mac, I'll stick with the original.

Short-sighted. Just because someone did something first doesn't mean someone else isn't going to do it better. But then again, I guess you've already made it plain that you're more concerned about aesthetics than performance. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you should keep in mind that not everyone thinks the same way.

I must admit Macs can do things I've never seen another computer do. I was using an iMac a couple of years ago on campus, and when I told it to eject my CD, it managed to launch the disc into a trajectory that carried it a good 10 or 20cm away from the computer, the CD bouncing along the desk on its side but I caught it after the first bounce (quick reflexes you see - luckily I wan't too busy admiring the computer's good looks). Actually it was a bit embarrassing because it was quite loud when it bounced and I got a few funny looks.:shifty:
(if you don't believe me, seriously try it yourself - drop a CD exactly on its edge from a height of about 20cm and see the sound it makes in a quiet room)

I must admit Macs can do things I've never seen another computer do. I was using an iMac a couple of years ago on campus, and when I told it to eject my CD, it managed to launch the disc into a trajectory that carried it a good 10 or 20cm away from the computer, the CD bouncing along the desk on its side but I caught it after the first bounce (quick reflexes you see - luckily I wan't too busy admiring the computer's good looks). Actually it was a bit embarrassing because it was quite loud when it bounced and I got a few funny looks.:shifty:
(if you don't believe me, seriously try it yourself - drop a CD exactly on its edge from a height of about 20cm and see the sound it makes in a quiet room)

:eek: you should have taken it to Apple to fix that problem, they are only supposed to eject half way

Note: use a student discount and upgrade RAM and HDD yourself (save them in the Applecare box) so when you sell it you break even (Apple overprices their upgrades except 512GB SSDs :dunno:) and the next one is basically free!
If you don't buy student discount then buy refurbished, same warranty, went through higher quality control process and sometimes free upgrades

If you're running Windows, you're not running OSX. Sure, you have the option of booting into OSX, but if you're not using OSX, that Mac isn't really any different from another Windows machine.

I'd love to see your sources on OSX being "consistently rated the best operating system available for home computers".



This is a meaningless argument. If you have two partitions, each with its own operating system, of course you can wipe one with the other. I can do that with Windows. I can do that with Linux. It's not something that's 'special' to OSX, although it does seem like Macs are more likely to have a Windows partition. You ever think about why that is? Here's a hint: it's probably because the user wants to do something that they can't do in OSX.



So you like things pretty. That's great. Myself, I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice some visual quality for performance. I don't see computers as interactive works of art, so I guess I'm not missing out on much.

Your choice of pronouns in this paragraph is unusual. Who is the 'we' and 'our' you're referring to? Do you claim to speak for everyone who uses a Mac?



Yeah, those three qualities are a lot easier to manage when the hardware specifications are carefully locked down. Of course, it also means that you're probably going to run into a lot of problems if you try to use your Mac other than intended - such as gaming, for example. Apple's been getting better about it, but they're still not quite all there.



First thing I did after installing Windows 7 was to make it look like Windows 95/98, so I can't really answer how the aesthetics compares to a Mac. Personally, I find all the context-sensitive stuff more of a hindrance than a help when it comes to getting things done.



Short-sighted. Just because someone did something first doesn't mean someone else isn't going to do it better. But then again, I guess you've already made it plain that you're more concerned about aesthetics than performance. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you should keep in mind that not everyone thinks the same way.

Macs can run windows in Parallels, which means you don't have to quit OSX to run Windows.

And for years upon years, every showdown between OS X and whatever flavor of Windows was on the market ended badly for Microsoft. I could go dig up sources to confirm that, but what's the point? As I said, apparently with Windows 7, Microsoft has finally gotten it right--but too late for me.

It's funny, you sound just like me when I was twenty. Back then I was working in software and I was a hardcore PC guy. I'd rail against Macs. Of course, back then they really weren't anything to get excited about. Mac OSX really was a game changer, though, and I was wooed over. Now, I really do appreciate the experience above most else--the aesthetics you dismiss are part of that, but again I stress the ease of use. Why shouldn't a machine be a work of art, through and through? And, in terms of performance, here's a link for you:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2363510,00.asp

Editor's choice in PC Magazine. I'm not sacrificing performance. I'm gaining versatility and design. At a premium? Maybe, but you get what you pay for.

Of course any machine will not have compatibility problems if you only allow hardware and software that is compatible.

http://guides.macrumors.com/List:Applications_Not_Compatible_with_Leopard

Well, they controlled their brand and in the end, it paid off. Though for a while, when they lost sight of that very principle, they almost fell off the radar completely.

It's interesting that Microsoft prospered with the opposite strategy and only helped save Apple to protect themselves from further anti-trust measures (my interpretation) but now Apple has blossomed with their paradigm and is beginning to eclipse Microsoft (my prediction--why do I say that? Because I think the era of the PC is ending and Apple and Google are positioned to control the future of digital operating systems that will live outside of the usual PC set-up.)

:eek: you should have taken it to Apple to fix that problem, they are only supposed to eject half way

Note: use a student discount and upgrade RAM and HDD yourself (save them in the Applecare box) so when you sell it you break even (Apple overprices their upgrades except 512GB SSDs :dunno:) and the next one is basically free!
If you don't buy student discount then buy refurbished, same warranty, went through higher quality control process and sometimes free upgrades

He said it was in a computer lab. If he'd taken the iMac in for service, then he'd have been arrested.

He said it was in a computer lab. If he'd taken the iMac in for service, then he'd have been arrested.

then he should have told the people in charge of the lab, either way it should have been serviced

then he should have told the people in charge of the lab, either way it should have been serviced

Congratulations, I certify that you have no sense of humor.

Congratulations, I certify that you have no sense of humor.
NOOOOOOOOOo

well actually you are correct

:eek: you should have taken it to Apple to fix that problem, they are only supposed to eject half way

Why must life be so complicated? Next time I went into that lab I just used the PCs. Sure, they were cheap and crappy Dells but they "just worked". Besides, the only reason I was using the iMac on that occasion was that all the PCs were taken. :lol:

Note: use a student discount and upgrade RAM and HDD yourself (save them in the Applecare box) so when you sell it you break even (Apple overprices their upgrades except 512GB SSDs :dunno:) and the next one is basically free!
If you don't buy student discount then buy refurbished, same warranty, went through higher quality control process and sometimes free upgrades

Thanks for the advice but it sounds too complicated for me. Except for the laptop I have, I already build my computers from scratch and have no trouble finding parts that are good value. You might be paying a slight premium when you buy a Mac in the US, but the price gets ridiculous down here in Oz. ;)
There are two main things that have stopped me or discouraged me from buying a Mac:
1) Price.
2) Closed design. To me, a desktop computer needs to be basically an open workbench where I can easily change any part at will. The ATX form factor has always served me well.

As far as I'm concerned, their OS X might be even better than Windows, but if I have to use a Mac machine to use that OS then it's not an option to me.

Why must life be so complicated? Next time I went into that lab I just used the PCs. Sure, they were cheap and crappy Dells but they "just worked". Besides, the only reason I was using the iMac on that occasion was that all the PCs were taken. :lol:



Thanks for the advice but it sounds too complicated for me. Except for the laptop I have, I already build my computers from scratch and have no trouble finding parts that are good value. You might be paying a slight premium when you buy a Mac in the US, but the price gets ridiculous down here in Oz. ;)
There are two main things that have stopped me or discouraged me from buying a Mac:
1) Price.
2) Closed design. To me, a desktop computer needs to be basically an open workbench where I can easily change any part at will. The ATX form factor has always served me well.

As far as I'm concerned, their OS X might be even better than Windows, but if I have to use a Mac machine to use that OS then it's not an option to me.

If you do Windows, Building>Buying,

Mac Pro
http://www.architosh.com/features/2006/reviews/macpro/images/macpro_inside-sm.jpg
looks like what you want, plus the dual CPU version is priced basically the same as a dell/hp/whatever


MacBook Pros are lightweight and long battery life (plus you can upgrade RAM and HDD easily, or you can swap the Optical for another HDD/SSD)

Plus the dual CPU version is priced basically the same as a dell/hp/whatever
What? The dual CPU version is 3.5K! Stop spouting propaganda and untrue statements. I don't care how much you claim they're 'lightweight', they cost a ridiculous amount of money.

Um, the cheapest Mac Pro for sale here is 3500 AUD (about 3130 USD)

http://store.apple.com/au/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro?mco=MTAyNTQzNDQ

Sure, the parts might be the latest and greatest, but I never buy the latest and greatest because of the premium price tag.

By the way, if I had a budget of 3500AUD to build a new computer (which I don't :lol:), I could easily build something a lot more powerful.

Um, the cheapest Mac Pro for sale here is 3500 AUD (about 3130 USD)

http://store.apple.com/au/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro?mco=MTAyNTQzNDQ

Sure, the parts might be the latest and greatest, but I never buy the latest and greatest because of the premium price tag.
Considering you could spend about half that to get an equivalent windows computer, I wouldn't even consider ever buying a mac.

A possible build for $3500:

-Doesn't include the mouse and keyboard

(prices are in AUD)
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/8310/pcbeatsmachandsdown.jpgPrices from PC Case Gear (http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php) (except for Win7 OS)

I'm assuming the 750W supply is enough but I haven't thoroughly researched the power drain of those components.

And this is the Mac that costs $3499 AU.
http://storeimages.apple.com/4904/store.apple.com/Catalog/regional/apac/cto/cto_macpro.jpghttp://img829.imageshack.us/img829/3775/macc.jpg

The CPU is way overkill by the way, but I wanted to at least match the one the Mac Pro had. Oh, and the motherboard is an overclocker's dream.

Guys, I realize waiting for the demo is boring, but we've been through this before in this thread.

You don't buy a Mac for the hardware (unless you are a design freak). If all you want is a bunch of chips and plastic, yes, it is overpriced. I built the server in our house myself, based on Ubuntu, because it was far cheaper than buying an OS X server. You buy a Mac for the complete package. And this package doesn't save money, it saves time. Lots and lots of time. Because, and we have pointed this out before, too, it just works. Linux doesn't "just work" (I've been using it since my 386DX, don't flame me), and Windows XP doesn't "just work" (don't know about Win 7, the people I know who dual boot it say it's getting there).

One difference we seem to have here with some people is simply age and, uh, where you are in your life's history. Those of you who have more time than money because they are young, free, and single, yeah, I can see why you buy a less expensive, but more troublesome computer. You have the time to screw around with it. I did once, too. For those of us who have more money than time, a Mac is so worth those few dollars (euros) more, it isn't even funny. What do you think I would rather be doing, installing and maintaining some anti-virus program, fighting in DLL hell, or playing with my children?

PieceOfMind correctly points out that Macs are not great to expand, except for the top-end model. However, the desktop PC is on the way out as a "personal" computer anyway -- the big sellers are laptops. And at least in my case, no laptop, be it ThinkPad or MacBook, survives for longer than three years anyway. Then the case is cracked (white plastic MacBook, don't buy them), the hinge breaks (ThinkPad), something like that. It's rough being my laptop. I don't care about expanding, because the most I do is install a larger HD and more RAM (both trivial (http://support.apple.com/manuals/#portablecomputers) on a MacBook). I'll need a new computer anyway.

Maybe my MacBook Pro 15" i5 was a wee more expensive than something from Dell (seems with good reason (http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/30/documents-show-that-dell-knowingly-sold-defective-computers-mis/)). But it just works, its body is a solid block of aluminium I could smash small rodents with, and it runs StarCraft 2 with no problems (and I think it would probably be a really super fantastic machine for Civilization V, too, by the way, hey Firaxis, did you hear that?). The fact that somebody actually put some thought into the design and it doesn't look like crap doesn't hurt, either. After two decades, I'm tired of ugly computers.

So maybe you are right and a Mac isn't right for you. But I suggest you try one for a while before you decide on your next computer -- and remember that they're around once you get to the point when you life starts filling up with lots of other stuff. Life, unfortunately, happens in real-time.

Guys, I realize waiting for the demo is boring, but we've been through this before in this thread.

You don't buy a Mac for the hardware (unless you are a design freak). If all you want is a bunch of chips and plastic, yes, it is overpriced. I built the server in our house myself, based on Ubuntu, because it was far cheaper than buying an OS X server. You buy a Mac for the complete package. And this package doesn't save money, it saves time. Lots and lots of time. Because, and we have pointed this out before, too, it just works. Linux doesn't "just work" (I've been using it since my 386DX, don't flame me), and Windows XP doesn't "just work" (don't know about Win 7, the people I know who dual boot it say it's getting there).

One difference we seem to have here with some people is simply age and, uh, where you are in your life's history. Those of you who have more time than money because they are young, free, and single, yeah, I can see why you buy a less expensive, but more troublesome computer. You have the time to screw around with it. I did once, too. For those of us who have more money than time, a Mac is so worth those few dollars (euros) more, it isn't even funny. What do you think I would rather be doing, installing and maintaining some anti-virus program, fighting in DLL hell, or playing with my children?

PieceOfMind correctly points out that Macs are not great to expand, except for the top-end model. However, the desktop PC is on the way out as a "personal" computer anyway -- the big sellers are laptops. And at least in my case, no laptop, be it ThinkPad or MacBook, survives for longer than three years anyway. Then the case is cracked (white plastic MacBook, don't buy them), the hinge breaks (ThinkPad), something like that. It's rough being my laptop. I don't care about expanding, because the most I do is install a larger HD and more RAM (both trivial (http://support.apple.com/manuals/#portablecomputers) on a MacBook). I'll need a new computer anyway.

Maybe my MacBook Pro 15" i5 was a wee more expensive than something from Dell (seems with good reason (http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/30/documents-show-that-dell-knowingly-sold-defective-computers-mis/)). But it just works, its body is a solid block of aluminium I could smash small rodents with, and it runs StarCraft 2 with no problems (and I think it would probably be a really super fantastic machine for Civilization V, too, by the way, hey Firaxis, did you hear that?). The fact that somebody actually put some thought into the design and it doesn't look like crap doesn't hurt, either. After two decades, I'm tired of ugly computers.

So maybe you are right and a Mac isn't right for you. But I suggest you try one for a while before you decide on your next computer -- and remember that they're around once you get to the point when you life starts filling up with lots of other stuff. Life, unfortunately, happens in real-time.

Well put, my friend.

And can I add: Hey, they're all just computers. Who cares, right?

Macs can run windows in Parallels, which means you don't have to quit OSX to run Windows.

And I can run virtual machines on a Windows or Linux machine, too. Can't run OSX inside a VM, but that's because Apple deliberately made it difficult.

And for years upon years, every showdown between OS X and whatever flavor of Windows was on the market ended badly for Microsoft. I could go dig up sources to confirm that, but what's the point? As I said, apparently with Windows 7, Microsoft has finally gotten it right--but too late for me.

I'll admit to not having paid close attention to the comparisons between Windows and Mac when new versions were released, but it seems to me that they were never really fair comparisons to begin with. One on hand, you have a custom-built system that does no more than necessary, while on the other you have a generalist system that tries to encompass as much hardware and software compatibility as possible. It's a trade-off that is never recognized in most reviews.

Then you start making the comparisons using OEM systems that bundle bloatware to increase profits, and the end results are a foregone conclusion.

It's funny, you sound just like me when I was twenty. Back then I was working in software and I was a hardcore PC guy. I'd rail against Macs. Of course, back then they really weren't anything to get excited about. Mac OSX really was a game changer, though, and I was wooed over. Now, I really do appreciate the experience above most else--the aesthetics you dismiss are part of that, but again I stress the ease of use.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Macs. I understand the value in a well-designed user interface and easing the learning curve for newer users, and Apple has done very well in those areas. What irks me is when people start touting the 'experience' and seemingly imply that there's some sort of mystical quality present in the machine.

Properly explaining my feelings on the matter would take far more words that it's worth, so I'll just leave it there.

Why shouldn't a machine be a work of art, through and through?

My main gripe about turning things into works of art is that they inevitably take things too far. They start crippling existing features to streamline the experience, and your artful masterpiece is less functional than before.

As far as I know, OSX has suffered far less from this than Windows has, but these days I'm uneasy whenever something becomes 'context-sensitive' or 'completely redesigned', because they've more often than not made it harder for me to get to what I want to use. It's not just relearning where it is, it's having to click and/or wait more to get there.

And, in terms of performance, here's a link for you:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2363510,00.asp

Editor's choice in PC Magazine. I'm not sacrificing performance. I'm gaining versatility and design. At a premium? Maybe, but you get what you pay for.

I should've chosen my words more carefully - when I said 'performance', I meant 'productivity'. Those are indeed impressive specifications, but the real question is whether it would meet your needs when it comes to actual use. The computer performance may be better, but if my personal performance becomes substandard, it probably isn't worth it.

OS X does not meet my needs for intended use, through no fault of their own.

The entire industry I work in is PC based, because you can't put AutoCAD onto a Mac. There are alternatives, of course, but it's just easier to use windows and not worry about compatibility issues or obscure features being left out.

Through from experience in a dual PC/Mac computer lab, the scroll wheel/ball thing on the factory mice on the iMacs in there have a really bad habit of crapping out and breaking. If I owned one, i'd be using a 3rd party USB mouse with the machine. Also, the USB ports aren't very intuitively placed, looked all over the screen, turns out theyre hiding under the keyboard. Minor issues that probably wouldnt exist if I owned the system.

Back on topic, I absolutely can't see any reason not to put Civ5 on Mac over Steam.

Um, the cheapest Mac Pro for sale here is 3500 AUD (about 3130 USD)

http://store.apple.com/au/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro?mco=MTAyNTQzNDQ
Try building it with workstation parts
Sure, the parts might be the latest and greatest, but I never buy the latest and greatest because of the premium price tag.

By the way, if I had a budget of 3500AUD to build a new computer (which I don't :lol:), I could easily build something a lot more powerful.
Yes, it is widely know that the single processor Mac Pro is expensive because it uses server parts (and because Apple wants those buyers to go for the iMac)
Considering you could spend about half that to get an equivalent windows computer, I wouldn't even consider ever buying a mac.
Dell Precision T7500 64bit Dual Processor
I configured it to meet the specs of the dual CPU Mac Pro and guess what, it is $500 more than the dual CPU Mac Pro! Yes Virginia, workstations are expensive
OS X does not meet my needs for intended use, through no fault of their own.

The entire industry I work in is PC based, because you can't put AutoCAD onto a Mac. There are alternatives, of course, but it's just easier to use windows and not worry about compatibility issues or obscure features being left out.

Through from experience in a dual PC/Mac computer lab, the scroll wheel/ball thing on the factory mice on the iMacs in there have a really bad habit of crapping out and breaking. If I owned one, i'd be using a 3rd party USB mouse with the machine. Also, the USB ports aren't very intuitively placed, looked all over the screen, turns out theyre hiding under the keyboard. Minor issues that probably wouldnt exist if I owned the system.

Back on topic, I absolutely can't see any reason not to put Civ5 on Mac over Steam.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/evidence-of-autocad-mac-edition-surfaces/6973
AutoCAD is returning to Mac

yes, there is a USB port on the keyboard and behind the monitor

AutoCAD is returning to Mac

How very interesting. I had missed that.

How very interesting. I had missed that.

My dad is an architect and he's currently running Pentium 4s :mischief: hopefully AutoCAD is out by mid next year

Um, the cheapest Mac Pro for sale here is 3500 AUD (about 3130 USD)

http://store.apple.com/au/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro?mco=MTAyNTQzNDQ
Try building it with workstation parts
Sure, the parts might be the latest and greatest, but I never buy the latest and greatest because of the premium price tag.

By the way, if I had a budget of 3500AUD to build a new computer (which I don't :lol:), I could easily build something a lot more powerful.
Yes, it is widely know that the single processor Mac Pro is expensive because it uses server parts (and because Apple wants those buyers to go for the iMac)
Can you please make it a bit more obvious when you alter a quote?

Ok, so the Mac Pro is using server parts. That was the cheapest Mac Pro I could find.
The hypothetical computer I built was using expensive enthusiast (aka rich gamer) parts. Apart from possibly the DVD drive, it's not as if I was using cheap and nasty parts. Especially for the RAM and CPU, I was throwing in stupidly cutting-edge premium stuff.

I'm trying really hard to find a Mac that would represent good value to me. I don't normally call myself a gamer but for the purpose of choosing computer parts I may as well. What iMac would be the best value to me? Suppose my budget is around about 1500 AUD maximum. ... Oh wait, the cheapest iMac I see is 1600. Ok I better make that my maximum spend instead for the fair comparison. Are you suggesting to me the $1600 iMac on this page: http://store.apple.com/au/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac

Whenever there is a Mac topic on this site, the whole thing turns into a war...

Y'all will be happy to know that Apple just fixed the graphics driver bugs (http://www.tuaw.com/2010/08/17/snow-leopard-graphics-update-available/) in Snow Leopard with an update (like, finally). The really interesting part is that they actually came out and said that it fixes problems with Valve's games Portal and TF2 as well as with StarCraft 2. Usually Apple's patches come with information to the extent of "We fixed some, like, stuff. It's cool now." Talk about free advertising.

I'm sure the Firaxis developers working on the OS X version of Civ V are really, really happy about this too, aren't you guys? Right? Hello?

Y'all will be happy to know that Apple just fixed the graphics driver bugs (http://www.tuaw.com/2010/08/17/snow-leopard-graphics-update-available/) in Snow Leopard with an update (like, finally). The really interesting part is that they actually came out and said that it fixes problems with Valve's games Portal and TF2 as well as with StarCraft 2. Usually Apple's patches come with information to the extent of "We fixed some, like, stuff. It's cool now." Talk about free advertising.

I'm sure the Firaxis developers working on the OS X version of Civ V are really, really happy about this too, aren't you guys? Right? Hello?

!!!! my FPS shot up

Day = made.

:love:

Day = made.

:love:

The massive boost in FPS?

This is one of the reasons that updating your graphics driver is ALWAYS important.

This is one of the reasons that updating your graphics driver is ALWAYS important.

My frames per second in some cases went up over 100%, seems like Apple's weak GPUs will be because of software

This is one of the reasons that updating your graphics driver is ALWAYS important.

I would give any new release at least a week or two before using it, as sometimes the drivers are screwed up. Older games or video cards occasionally perform worse with newer drivers, so it's a good idea to wait and see if there are any problems you should be aware of.

In fact, Nvidia released drivers not too long ago that actually fried some video cards. A little patience can save you a lot of grief.

I updated this morning and noticed when loading Steam that their normal sales pop-up was informing me of the Apple update. Nice to know that Steam is paying attention. I guess I should test the update, so I'm off to play some Half-Life 2.

When it comes down to it, a Mac just works,


Remember that 10.6.4 has a broken graphics driver, and that Valve is telling people to stay the hell away from it (see here). So at least some 10.6.4 users will be staying away from Steam at the moment.

Yes, a Mac is a personal computer designed by Apple that never has compatibility problems or driver issues,



10.6.4 screws over drivers


Well, at least you guys don't contradict yourselves in the same post, but that's the best that can be said of it.

Well, at least you guys don't contradict yourselves in the same post, but that's the best that can be said of it.

Sigh. Do we have to make a war out of this?

The graphics driver was not a question of "working" or "not working", but of working "fast" or working "very fast". "Fast" was enough for everybody when Macs were not a game platform, because stability was much more important, and that's where Apple put its priorities. Now "fast" is not good enough anymore, and so Apple is being forced to move to "very fast" (Steve Jobs is famous for not liking computer games, so maybe "dragged kicking and screaming" is the best choice of words here).

To my knowledge, the old driver did not cause any problems with serious work, and did not affect the stability of the system in any way. It still "just worked". However, it was "just too slow".

Sigh. Do we have to make a war out of this?

The graphics driver was not a question of "working" or "not working", but of working "fast" or working "very fast". "Fast" was enough for everybody when Macs were not a game platform, because stability was much more important, and that's where Apple put its priorities. Now "fast" is not good enough anymore, and so Apple is being forced to move to "very fast" (Steve Jobs is famous for not liking computer games, so maybe "dragged kicking and screaming" is the best choice of words here).

To my knowledge, the old driver did not cause any problems with serious work, and did not affect the stability of the system in any way. It still "just worked". However, it was "just too slow".

So "broken" now means "not working 'very fast'"? Interesting language you Apple people have. It's a bit hard to understand for the non-initiated though.

Oh boy this is going to turn into a war soon! My compaq died with in 3 years.....

Compac make rubbish PCs, why compare poor quality branded PCs to Macs?

3 years is actually a decent lifespan for an 'off the shelf' type PC, particularly if it never got defragged or cleaned to remove dust and dirt on the inside (My PCs are always fully dust proof, I make sure to always buy a case with dust filters, and attach extra ones if needed).

Macs are the most reliable computers I have ever used, PCs just crash all the time.

My PC doesnt ever crash (except for when overclocking and testing for maximum stability).

There is only one brand of Macs made by Apple, and Apple make good macs. Whereas there are hundreds of brands that make PCs, 90% of which make completely crap computers, that I could have built better when I were 12.

Also - My PC spec (similar components, some things are different based on price matching what I have):

http://a.imageshack.us/img697/4443/3000b.png (http://img697.imageshack.us/i/3000b.png/)

VS a mac specced as close as I could get it to mine:

http://a.imageshack.us/img638/1734/omgmacprice.png (http://img638.imageshack.us/i/omgmacprice.png/)

:)

Whenever there is a Mac topic on the internet, the whole thing turns into a war...

Fix'd

Maybe PC games dont get released for the macs because all you can get on a mac is a 512 Meg ATI 4870, in a machine that costs several thousands of £££. Macs arent designed for playing games on, if you want to play games and you bought a mac, thats your own mistake and problem.

So "broken" now means "not working 'very fast'"? Interesting language you Apple people have. It's a bit hard to understand for the non-initiated though.

Don't worry, we'll talk you through it.

"Broken" in a general computer context means "Tango Uniform", as in, it doesn't work, crashes, turns your graphics card to ashes, starts fires, rips a hole in the space-time continuum. This is not the case. The computer as a whole still "just works".

"Broken" in the very special context of computer games means that you cannot play the game at a satisfactory level. YMMV here -- I did fine with all my Mac Steam games, but other people seem to demand 100 fps, and for them (and for Valve itself), it was "broken". The computer as a whole still "just works", but the games aspect is "broken". Same word, different context.

Note that nowhere have I ever claimed or will ever claim that Macs are free of all errors and defects, that Apple never screws up, or that Steve Jobs is the kwisatz haderach. They are a company, charged first of all to make money for their shareholders, and they are human, which means their machines have a problems like everything else built by human hands. They just happen to have less problems, which is why -- as discussed ad nauseum in earlier posts -- some us think it is worth our money to by a Mac instead of a PC that might be less expensive.

This discussion is beginning to repeat itself. More to the point, we are getting away from the really important question -- what about the Mac version of Civ V?

Well, at least you guys don't contradict yourselves in the same post, but that's the best that can be said of it.

*snip*
Also - My PC spec (similar components, some things are different based on price matching what I have):

http://a.imageshack.us/img697/4443/3000b.png (http://img697.imageshack.us/i/3000b.png/)

VS a mac specced as close as I could get it to mine:

http://a.imageshack.us/img638/1734/omgmacprice.png (http://img638.imageshack.us/i/omgmacprice.png/)

:)



Fix'd

Maybe PC games dont get released for the macs because all you can get on a mac is a 512 Meg ATI 4870, in a machine that costs several thousands of £££. Macs arent designed for playing games on, if you want to play games and you bought a mac, thats your own mistake and problem.

I'm in shock that you would just straight out lie like that,
making your own computer is always cheaper, and you do realize the Mac Pro is a workstation right?

http://store.apple.com/uk/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro
The Mac Pro ships with a 5770 contrary to what you claim, Apple doesn't make a Mac Pro that is a quad at 3.33GHz, however it does make a hexacore at that frequency (that chip alone costs $1,127 from Intel)

You also can't get a three year next day service warranty on a home built computer

I'm in shock that you would just straight out lie like that,
making your own computer is always cheaper, and you do realize the Mac Pro is a workstation right?

http://store.apple.com/uk/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro
The Mac Pro ships with a 5770 contrary to what you claim, Apple doesn't make a Mac Pro that is a quad at 3.33GHz, however it does make a hexacore at that frequency (that chip alone costs $1,127 from Intel)

You also can't get a three year next day service warranty on a home built computer

Mac Pro is a workstation, but the only thing that they sell that would compare to a normal desktop PC. Their Imacs are really poor specced, and they dont make normal priced desktops with better specs.

That Mac Pro that I posted was specced at the same time that I bought my current motherboard (May). So they offer better hardware now, yet a 5770 still isnt a workstation graphics card, it is a desktop mid range gaming graphics card!

A real workstation would have a FireGL, or Quadro card.

Now if you look at the macs intended for the normal user, the Imac, the last I checked, the highest model was £1600 and came with an ATI 4850. Absolutely no one that is right in their mind would pay that much money for that spec for a gaming computer.

I am aware that the mac pro is a workstation computer (if still rather inferior for that task), and that the Imac is a nice looking, convenient, sleek and small computer, suitable for web browsing, office work, and multimedia. However Mac users should also realise that Macs are not gaming computers, and if you actually want a computer to play video games on, you need a PC.

As for warranty issues, warranties for individual components are normally a lot faster than a warranty on a whole pre built computer. If something does break, you can simply take it out, buy an immediate replacement, send the faulty part back for warranty service and sell the replacement as brand new. It is far far faster to keep a self built PC repaired and serviced yourself than it is to wait for a pre built computer to get repaired.

So right now with Macs, you would have to pay at least £1650 to get an Imac with a just adequate for gaming ATI 5750 and a Core I5 2.8 Ghz. Also, that model uses a 2560-by-1440 resolution screen, which in all honesty, is far too much for a 5750 to handle any current game on, even Civ 5 would struggle to run on that card at that resolution. And for that much money you could have a seriously far better specced gaming PC, and one which is actually built well enough to be reliable and stable!

Apple Macs make absolutely no sense at all for a gaming computer.

Windows XP doesn't "just work" (don't know about Win 7, the people I know who dual boot it say it's getting there).

I don't get that. I downloaded about the same amount of things, and made about the same amount of changes to OS X as I did to Windows on the same machine before I got either to a perfect state. If you're buying a Windows machine from an OEM it's going to be in just as workable a state as you'd expect.

As for warranty issues, warranties for individual components are normally a lot faster than a warranty on a whole pre built computer. If something does break, you can simply take it out, buy an immediate replacement, send the faulty part back for warranty service and sell the replacement as brand new. It is far far faster to keep a self built PC repaired and serviced yourself than it is to wait for a pre built computer to get repaired.


I agree with you on that.

IMO anyone at least minimally comfortable with the innards of a desktop computer (i.e. you aren't afraid, like I used to be, the inside is somehow going to kill you) is better off building the computer themselves. The first time I put a computer together I found it a lot easier than I had originally thought it would be. It was pretty fun too, in a geeky sort of way. :cool:

From what I can tel, I lump Macs in with other prebuilt computers because of the fact you end up paying for stuff you don't want or miss out on things you do want. Sure, you can customize some components on computers from any of the major competing system builders now, but how often do you get a choice on things like the brand of RAM or HDD, or the size of the case, or the size (and hence noise signature) of the fans or the number of USB ports?... and I haven't even mentioned motherboard quality yet.

For reasons I don't understand, Apple don't want me to have the option of installing one of their operating systems on my computer and unfortunately a Mac with similar components and similar moddability would cost a huge deal more.

I apologise if the way I approach this conversation is almost religious - it's just an opinion formed from the experience I've had and the sorts of performance requirements and budgets I use when considering computers. I think the point I'm really trying to make is that while I appreciate there are a large number of users for whom a Mac purchase makes sense, the design decisions and prices set by Apple simply exclude me personally from that group. Owning a computer is already a luxury, and in a sense it's as if owning a Mac is an even greater luxury (that's the only compliment you're going to get from me today, Apple :p). I often get the impression that the advice given by those who favour Mac is intended to be general and so the advice is to me. I mean, things like gaming (i.e. games that require a graphics card:lol:) and building computers obviously aren't for everyone, so if they were things that didn't concern me then obviously it'd be a waste of time for me to focus on them in arguments about what computer I should buy.

Macs vs. PCs is a question of what the user wants. For me, the affordability and performance (for games) of a custom-built desktop PC simply can't be matched by any Mac option that is available to me.

And sorry for technically being off-topic... I can't help myself - I'm learning a lot about Apple/Macs here - as a person in a different market to the USA's, I don't exactly get a lot of exposure to Mac "culture".

And by the way, for me at least, Windows has always "just worked".;)

Mac Pro is a workstation, but the only thing that they sell that would compare to a normal desktop PC. Their Imacs are really poor specced, and they dont make normal priced desktops with better specs.

That Mac Pro that I posted was specced at the same time that I bought my current motherboard (May). So they offer better hardware now, yet a 5770 still isnt a workstation graphics card, it is a desktop mid range gaming graphics card!

A real workstation would have a FireGL, or Quadro card.

Now if you look at the macs intended for the normal user, the Imac, the last I checked, the highest model was £1600 and came with an ATI 4850. Absolutely no one that is right in their mind would pay that much money for that spec for a gaming computer.

I am aware that the mac pro is a workstation computer (if still rather inferior for that task), and that the Imac is a nice looking, convenient, sleek and small computer, suitable for web browsing, office work, and multimedia. However Mac users should also realise that Macs are not gaming computers, and if you actually want a computer to play video games on, you need a PC.

As for warranty issues, warranties for individual components are normally a lot faster than a warranty on a whole pre built computer. If something does break, you can simply take it out, buy an immediate replacement, send the faulty part back for warranty service and sell the replacement as brand new. It is far far faster to keep a self built PC repaired and serviced yourself than it is to wait for a pre built computer to get repaired.

So right now with Macs, you would have to pay at least £1650 to get an Imac with a just adequate for gaming ATI 5750 and a Core I5 2.8 Ghz. Also, that model uses a 2560-by-1440 resolution screen, which in all honesty, is far too much for a 5750 to handle any current game on, even Civ 5 would struggle to run on that card at that resolution. And for that much money you could have a seriously far better specced gaming PC, and one which is actually built well enough to be reliable and stable!

Apple Macs make absolutely no sense at all for a gaming computer.
0) Yes, people got [pissed] about the last update cycle, for some reason it took 500 days for them to update it, probably Intel's new chip release cycle
1) okay, then go with two 5770 or a 5870
2) The Mac Pro is getting Quadros within a month, Nvidia is finishing up the drivers (I think it's a 5000 and a 6000)
3) Next day repair is slow? Actually sometimes they repair it within a couple hours, besides most common failure is the hard drives, and Apple makes it really easy to back everything up
4) Just how high is the VAT??? It is a quad core i5 so not that bad, anyways you can spend £160 and make it an i7
5) There is a reason it has 1GB of GDDR5 RAM, besides you could always drop the resolution
6) Why would Civ 5 struggle? Civ4 rendered the whole map, even under the fog of war. you could turn down the resolution or the settings if you wanted to make it run better.
7) My point isn't that they are good for a dedicated gaming machine, but that they can game

0) Yes, people got [pissed] about the last update cycle, for some reason it took 500 days for them to update it, probably Intel's new chip release cycle
1) okay, then go with two 5770 or a 5870
2) The Mac Pro is getting Quadros within a month, Nvidia is finishing up the drivers (I think it's a 5000 and a 6000)
3) Next day repair is slow? Actually sometimes they repair it within a couple hours, besides most common failure is the hard drives, and Apple makes it really easy to back everything up
4) Just how high is the VAT??? It is a quad core i5 so not that bad, anyways you can spend £160 and make it an i7
5) There is a reason it has 1GB of GDDR5 RAM, besides you could always drop the resolution
6) Why would Civ 5 struggle? Civ4 rendered the whole map, even under the fog of war. you could turn down the resolution or the settings if you wanted to make it run better.
7) My point isn't that they are good for a dedicated gaming machine, but that they can game

1) You cant get those in a prebuilt Mac, and hardly no one buys a mac to upgrade into a gaming spec.

2) Quadros have been available for decades now as Nvidias workstation GPU. For macs still not to have them supported in their £5000+ workstation computers is ridiculous.

3) Next day repair is very very slow when I can repair it myself within an hour or two instead.

4) An I7 doesnt do anything to improve video game, or any other performance outside of Multithrtreaded benchmarks. Many PC enthusiasts including myself who bought an I7 on release have severely regretted doing so after the I5 was released. In all benchmarks done with a quad core I5 and I7 clocked to the same frequency with turboboost enabled, the I5 will always win in video games because it has a higher turboboost multiplier and clock speed than the I7 does. Also, triple channel memory is a complete waste for video games, believe it when everyone that built an I7 rig purely for gaming are fuming several months later about how much better off they would have been with an I5 for less money instead. Also, a lot of people who use the I7 CPU have found it better to disable hyperthreading to greatly reduce temperatures, and overclock it by an extra 200 Mhz instead, essentially turning it into an I5 750.

5) 1 Gb GDDR5 isnt going to help at 2560 x 1440, especially not on a single 5770. You are looking into 2 Gb 5870 territory there, or 1.5 Gb GTX 480. A 1 Gb 5770 is barely adequate for todays games at 1080p resolution, for any resolution exceeding 2500+ pixels, a 1 Gb 5770 is far too low a spec for video games. No one running a PC with that high a resolution uses 5770s. They are mid range cards and generally are very good at 1680x1050, and adequate at 1080p, but even at the latter most people gaming on a PC would want better, either two 5770s, a 5850, or the new GTX 460 (double up on the 5850 or 460 for 16x AA in all your games at 1080p).

6) Civ 5 uses higher graphics than Civ 4, supports DX11 and tessellated maps, and even lots of advanced features under DX10 mode. I would wonder the same thing from when I read the preview where they tested the game on an I7 spec with an ATI 5870, and complained about the game really slowing down in the later stages.

7) Yes they can play WoW and the Sims. Give them anything recent and they wont manage. No one here can tell whether or not Civ 5 will run well on a mac, and judging by the recommended specification that has been released for Civ 5, and by reading the preview that was played on a 5870, only the most expensive Imac with the 5750, or a Mac Pro will be capable of sufficiently running Civ 5 at 1080p resolution as a maximum, and even then it will probably be running at slideshow speeds later on into each game. Most people who own a lower specced mac do not meet the recommended spec for this game.

I'm in shock that you would just straight out lie like that,
making your own computer is always cheaper, and you do realize the Mac Pro is a workstation right?

You also can't get a three year next day service warranty on a home built computer

Nice way of trying to dodge my point.

So, does a Mac never have driver issues or does 10.6.4. screw over drivers? You can't have them both.

1) You cant get those in a prebuilt Mac, and hardly no one buys a mac to upgrade into a gaming spec.

2) Quadros have been available for decades now as Nvidias workstation GPU. For macs still not to have them supported in their £5000+ workstation computers is ridiculous.

3) Next day repair is very very slow when I can repair it myself within an hour or two instead.

4) An I7 doesnt do anything to improve video game, or any other performance outside of Multithrtreaded benchmarks. Many PC enthusiasts including myself who bought an I7 on release have severely regretted doing so after the I5 was released. In all benchmarks done with a quad core I5 and I7 clocked to the same frequency with turboboost enabled, the I5 will always win in video games because it has a higher turboboost multiplier and clock speed than the I7 does. Also, triple channel memory is a complete waste for video games, believe it when everyone that built an I7 rig purely for gaming are fuming several months later about how much better off they would have been with an I5 for less money instead. Also, a lot of people who use the I7 CPU have found it better to disable hyperthreading to greatly reduce temperatures, and overclock it by an extra 200 Mhz instead, essentially turning it into an I5 750.

5) 1 Gb GDDR5 isnt going to help at 2560 x 1440, especially not on a single 5770. You are looking into 2 Gb 5870 territory there, or 1.5 Gb GTX 480. A 1 Gb 5770 is barely adequate for todays games at 1080p resolution, for any resolution exceeding 2500+ pixels, a 1 Gb 5770 is far too low a spec for video games. No one running a PC with that high a resolution uses 5770s. They are mid range cards and generally are very good at 1680x1050, and adequate at 1080p, but even at the latter most people gaming on a PC would want better, either two 5770s, a 5850, or the new GTX 460 (double up on the 5850 or 460 for 16x AA in all your games at 1080p).

6) Civ 5 uses higher graphics than Civ 4, supports DX11 and tessellated maps, and even lots of advanced features under DX10 mode. I would wonder the same thing from when I read the preview where they tested the game on an I7 spec with an ATI 5870, and complained about the game really slowing down in the later stages.

7) Yes they can play WoW and the Sims. Give them anything recent and they wont manage. No one here can tell whether or not Civ 5 will run well on a mac, and judging by the recommended specification that has been released for Civ 5, and by reading the preview that was played on a 5870, only the most expensive Imac with the 5750, or a Mac Pro will be capable of sufficiently running Civ 5 at 1080p resolution as a maximum, and even then it will probably be running at slideshow speeds later on into each game. Most people who own a lower specced mac do not meet the recommended spec for this game.
1) Apple sells 5770s and they run just fine in the 2009 Mac Pro (basically same computer except faster/more cores, better GPU and faster RAM)
2) The Mac Pro supports the Quadro 4800 and the Quadro 5600
3) Next day repair at latest, if it will take longer they give you temporary Mac Pro
4) Haven't you heard of the OpenGL OpenCL dream team? they work together so upgrading one will boost the team
5) Actually from Mac users I hear the 5770 runs games fine at 1080p
6) tester's copies can be poorly optimized
7) And all those Valve games
Nice way of trying to dodge my point.

So, does a Mac never have driver issues or does 10.6.4. screw over drivers? You can't have them both.
well it generally caused people FPS to drop, however Apple made it up to us by giving us drivers better than before they screwed up, previously people had like 70 FPS and then it dropped to 35 and now it's at 100, some people are now getting 150-200 FPS in TF2 now

3) Next day repair at latest, if it will take longer they give you temporary Mac Pro [quote]

I would really have to see that to believe. In anyway, replacing a whole PC with another one is a huge waste of effort compared to simply swapping out whatever broke. Whole computer RMAs are beyond pointless, I havnt required them in over 10 years of self build, and have never been for any longer than a day without a working PC.

[quote]4) Haven't you heard of the OpenGL OpenCL dream team? they work together so upgrading one will boost the team

Games are made for Direct X though.

5) Actually from Mac users I hear the 5770 runs games fine at 1080p

Thats what I said. 'Barely Adequate' to me also means 'fine' to the less fussy gamer. However if they wanted to turn all the settings up to max with AA and AF, the 5770 would quickly become inadequate. Also, Macs generally dont get the latest tech pushing games that are released on the PC.

7) And all those Valve games

They are still old games not using a current day game engine. Civ 5 uses a modern up to date DX11 engine, I dont even think that Macs support DX11 yet, unless you install Windows onto it, but then what exactly is the point in having a Mac instead of a PC?

The only main advantage to having a Mac is if you want OSX. But for gaming, you want to be using Windows, for which a better specced PC would be a lot better.

Civ_king, your level of denial is approaching ludicrous levels. You're now trying to argue that overpaying for inferior hardware is fine because you don't need good hardware to play games? The 5770 will be out of date (for decent res/settings) in 1-2 years. You can't fight out of pure specifications and benchmarks. Macs are ludicrously overpriced compared to building your own computer *and* prebuilt computers from other manufacturers. You're essentially paying 500$+ dollars to run OSX.

I agree with you on that.

IMO anyone at least minimally comfortable with the innards of a desktop computer (i.e. you aren't afraid, like I used to be, the inside is somehow going to kill you) is better off building the computer themselves. The first time I put a computer together I found it a lot easier than I had originally thought it would be. It was pretty fun too, in a geeky sort of way. :cool:

From what I can tel, I lump Macs in with other prebuilt computers because of the fact you end up paying for stuff you don't want or miss out on things you do want. Sure, you can customize some components on computers from any of the major competing system builders now, but how often do you get a choice on things like the brand of RAM or HDD, or the size of the case, or the size (and hence noise signature) of the fans or the number of USB ports?... and I haven't even mentioned motherboard quality yet.

For reasons I don't understand, Apple don't want me to have the option of installing one of their operating systems on my computer and unfortunately a Mac with similar components and similar moddability would cost a huge deal more.

I apologise if the way I approach this conversation is almost religious - it's just an opinion formed from the experience I've had and the sorts of performance requirements and budgets I use when considering computers. I think the point I'm really trying to make is that while I appreciate there are a large number of users for whom a Mac purchase makes sense, the design decisions and prices set by Apple simply exclude me personally from that group. Owning a computer is already a luxury, and in a sense it's as if owning a Mac is an even greater luxury (that's the only compliment you're going to get from me today, Apple :p). I often get the impression that the advice given by those who favour Mac is intended to be general and so the advice is to me. I mean, things like gaming (i.e. games that require a graphics card:lol:) and building computers obviously aren't for everyone, so if they were things that didn't concern me then obviously it'd be a waste of time for me to focus on them in arguments about what computer I should buy.

Macs vs. PCs is a question of what the user wants. For me, the affordability and performance (for games) of a custom-built desktop PC simply can't be matched by any Mac option that is available to me.

And sorry for technically being off-topic... I can't help myself - I'm learning a lot about Apple/Macs here - as a person in a different market to the USA's, I don't exactly get a lot of exposure to Mac "culture".

And by the way, for me at least, Windows has always "just worked".;)

The reason Apple doesn't want OS X on other machines is because they really want to control their brand. It's a marketing thing, and probably an overblown concern if you ask me.

I like their computers and for me, they're worth the premium--which, I think, is being overstated here.

All these other folks who are getting snippy and obnoxious about it should really get some perspective.

3) Next day repair at latest, if it will take longer they give you temporary Mac Pro

I would really have to see that to believe. In anyway, replacing a whole PC with another one is a huge waste of effort compared to simply swapping out whatever broke. Whole computer RMAs are beyond pointless, I havnt required them in over 10 years of self build, and have never been for any longer than a day without a working PC.



Games are made for Direct X though.



Thats what I said. 'Barely Adequate' to me also means 'fine' to the less fussy gamer. However if they wanted to turn all the settings up to max with AA and AF, the 5770 would quickly become inadequate. Also, Macs generally dont get the latest tech pushing games that are released on the PC.



They are still old games not using a current day game engine. Civ 5 uses a modern up to date DX11 engine, I dont even think that Macs support DX11 yet, unless you install Windows onto it, but then what exactly is the point in having a Mac instead of a PC?

The only main advantage to having a Mac is if you want OSX. But for gaming, you want to be using Windows, for which a better specced PC would be a lot better.
1) If they have the part in stock they immediately repair it, Mac Pros always get bumped to the front of the line in repair, I was at the Apple Store and a couple minutes later a guy brought in his Mac Pro, and he had it fixed in less than 10 minutes
2) And the Mac versions are made for OpenGL and OpenCL!
3) at 1080p AA is basically irrelevant as there is enough pixels that it smooths out enough
4) 60 FPS is barely adequate?
5) OpenGL 3.3 which is probably coming in 10.6.5 is as good as DX 11
6) Or you can use Crossover Games and run those games on your Mac!

3) at 1080p AA is basically irrelevant as there is enough pixels that it smooths out enough
4) 60 FPS is barely adequate?
5) OpenGL 3.3 which is probably coming in 10.6.5 is as good as DX 11
6) Or you can use Crossover Games and run those games on your Mac!

Sorry, but AA makes a huge difference at all resolutions. The amount of jaggies you still get without it are still very noticable.

60 FPS is fine, but a single 5770 isnt going to get 60 FPS at 1080p with 4x AA in most current games:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-5770-review-test/14

DX11 is the only way to get Tessellation, Direct Compute and its other benefits working as far as I know. Porting games over from DX to OpenGL is a waste compated to being able to run them in DX.

DX is very important for games.

This PC vs Mac fighting is all very nice, but can we get back to the subject? Hasn't anybody at Gamescom had the presence of mind to ask 2K about the Mac version? Look, it's about a month till release and they claim they still can't give us more information? This is getting silly. Either they are working on it or they are not, and I need to know.

And let me take this moment to point out that it has now become industry standard that you only pay for one version of the game, and get the other free (thank you Valve, thank you, Blizzard). A lot of people are not going to take it well if Firaxis comes out and says, yes, there will be a Mac port, but you are going to have to fork over anther $50 for it if you already have the PC version. Those days are over, guys.

Will they take it better if there just isn't an OS X port at all?

Will they take it better if there just isn't an OS X port at all?

Then Mac users are likely to port it but might pirate it out of spite

OpenGL can now do tessellation, however Apple needs to put it on the OS

Will they take it better if there just isn't an OS X port at all?

I really, really doubt that 2K will want to miss out on the revenue. However, then we would at least know where we stand, and we could concentrate and figuring out how to run it with VirtualBox. This sort of bad communication is something you expect from Valve, not Firaxis.

And let me take this moment to point out that it has now become industry standard that you only pay for one version of the game, and get the other free (thank you Valve, thank you, Blizzard). A lot of people are not going to take it well if Firaxis comes out and says, yes, there will be a Mac port, but you are going to have to fork over anther $50 for it if you already have the PC version. Those days are over, guys.

Industry standard is a little strong maybe ?

Blizzard who have been doing it since Warcraft II and some older games on Steam.

The games EA released ran through Cider didn't they ?

I understand your desire, you obviously prefer OSX, however the games market for non-console titles is strongest outside of the USA...where ironically the Mac market penetration is weakest.

Simple fact is serious (non-console)gamers, by serious I'm talking money slapped down for multiple games, expansions and DLC as well as high end hardware, tend to run Windows in numbers that dwarf the the potential Mac market and all but the largest developers/producers code for (and will continue to do so I suspect) for the largest market share.

After all who really buys a Mac for the (primary)purpose of gaming ?

Industry standard is a little strong maybe ?

Blizzard who have been doing it since Warcraft II and some older games on Steam.

The games EA released ran through Cider didn't they ?

I understand your desire, you obviously prefer OSX, however the games market for non-console titles is strongest outside of the USA...where ironically the Mac market penetration is weakest.

Simple fact is serious (non-console)gamers, by serious I'm talking money slapped down for multiple games, expansions and DLC as well as high end hardware, tend to run Windows in numbers that dwarf the the potential Mac market and all but the largest developers/producers code for (and will continue to do so I suspect) for the largest market share.

After all who really buys a Mac for the (primary)purpose of gaming ?

True enough. I think, though, that you might have to rework the "serious gamer" definition. That's certainly the way I felt when I was into PC gaming, but that was, frankly, a long time ago. The nature of the games industry has changed dramatically. Consoles and phones both make more money off games than PC or Mac games. Frankly, gaming on computers is a bit pase, unfortunately for those of us who like games that don't do well anywhere but on a computer (like Civ).

In fact, the whole Mac vs. PC debate is feeling particularly tired because the computer as a platform is fading. A huge share of our computing tasks are migrating onto other devices.

If Firaxis was smart, they'd be developing Civ Rev 2 for the iPad and Android tablets. (And let's hope when they do, they make it a little more robust.)

True enough. I think, though, that you might have to rework the "serious gamer" definition. That's certainly the way I felt when I was into PC gaming, but that was, frankly, a long time ago. The nature of the games industry has changed dramatically. Consoles and phones both make more money off games than PC or Mac games. Frankly, gaming on computers is a bit pase, unfortunately for those of us who like games that don't do well anywhere but on a computer (like Civ).

In fact, the whole Mac vs. PC debate is feeling particularly tired because the computer as a platform is fading. A huge share of our computing tasks are migrating onto other devices.

If Firaxis was smart, they'd be developing Civ Rev 2 for the iPad and Android tablets. (And let's hope when they do, they make it a little more robust.)

In general I agree with you though you'll find it is predominately Western Europe and the USA where this is the case.
The fastest growing market segment is the Asia/Pacific region, where for all the obvious reasons Apple's penetration is so small that it may as well not exist in the PC sector.

The PC overall is still the largest segment in gaming worldwide (clarification..largest using discrete graphic solution i.e. video cards).

Though the fact that the Tegra 2 is capable of handling the Unreal 3 engine makes me hope my Notion Ink Adam (http://www.notionink.in) will have some real interesting stuff, besides its uses for my work and the Pixel Qi to replace my kindle.

After all who really buys a Mac for the (primary)purpose of gaming ?

Nobody who is sane, that is for sure. No contest.

However, there are a bunch of us out here who have been playing Civ since the first version, and now have the money to buy a game like this, but would like it to run on their normal, everyday, serious-work-stuff computer. Which happens to be more and more a laptop anyway. This is a big market, PC or Mac. Firaxis realizes this, which is why Civ V is going to run on "normal" laptop graphic chips.

And since a lot -- or at least a lot more -- of those serious-work-stuff computers are now Macs, it would make sense for Firaxis to offer a Mac version. This is not rocket science if you set up the tools right. However, and this seems to be the problem, they obviously didn't. So they're in trouble, and it's increasingly looking like we Mac users are going to get ignored like it was still 1992 or something.

Nobody who is sane, that is for sure. No contest.

However, there are a bunch of us out here who have been playing Civ since the first version, and now have the money to buy a game like this, but would like it to run on their normal, everyday, serious-work-stuff computer. Which happens to be more and more a laptop anyway. This is a big market, PC or Mac. Firaxis realizes this, which is why Civ V is going to run on "normal" laptop graphic chips.

And since a lot -- or at least a lot more -- of those serious-work-stuff computers are now Macs, it would make sense for Firaxis to offer a Mac version. This is not rocket science if you set up the tools right. However, and this seems to be the problem, they obviously didn't. So they're in trouble, and it's increasingly looking like we Mac users are going to get ignored like it was still 1992 or something.

The bottom line is that Firaxis just isn't that big a studio. They obviously have chosen a strategy whereby they develop for the PC and then earn the extra income from selling the rights to port a Mac version. You and I would obviously prefer that they chose a different approach, ala Blizzard. But they haven't and I assume this model will hold for all of Civ 5's expansions.

Maybe by the time we're anticipating Civ 6 they'll have moved to a model like the one they used for Civ Rev--graphic scalability for maximum cross-platform penetration.

Industry standard is a little strong maybe ?

Blizzard who have been doing it since Warcraft II and some older games on Steam.

The games EA released ran through Cider didn't they ?

I understand your desire, you obviously prefer OSX, however the games market for non-console titles is strongest outside of the USA...where ironically the Mac market penetration is weakest.

Simple fact is serious (non-console)gamers, by serious I'm talking money slapped down for multiple games, expansions and DLC as well as high end hardware, tend to run Windows in numbers that dwarf the the potential Mac market and all but the largest developers/producers code for (and will continue to do so I suspect) for the largest market share.

After all who really buys a Mac for the (primary)purpose of gaming ?
Cider is fine, the point is we want to run it on OS X not Windows

I doubt many buy for gaming
True enough. I think, though, that you might have to rework the "serious gamer" definition. That's certainly the way I felt when I was into PC gaming, but that was, frankly, a long time ago. The nature of the games industry has changed dramatically. Consoles and phones both make more money off games than PC or Mac games. Frankly, gaming on computers is a bit pase, unfortunately for those of us who like games that don't do well anywhere but on a computer (like Civ).

In fact, the whole Mac vs. PC debate is feeling particularly tired because the computer as a platform is fading. A huge share of our computing tasks are migrating onto other devices.

If Firaxis was smart, they'd be developing Civ Rev 2 for the iPad and Android tablets. (And let's hope when they do, they make it a little more robust.)
gaming on PCs is not passé, it is hard to make good turn based strategies without a keyboard or mouse
I think the second generation iPad might pack some more power
In general I agree with you though you'll find it is predominately Western Europe and the USA where this is the case.
The fastest growing market segment is the Asia/Pacific region, where for all the obvious reasons Apple's penetration is so small that it may as well not exist in the PC sector.

The PC overall is still the largest segment in gaming worldwide (clarification..largest using discrete graphic solution i.e. video cards).

Though the fact that the Tegra 2 is capable of handling the Unreal 3 engine makes me hope my Notion Ink Adam (http://www.notionink.in) will have some real interesting stuff, besides its uses for my work and the Pixel Qi to replace my kindle.
Apple just recently opened it's third and fourth Apple stores in Mainland China, it sold out of everything within hours, and this will continue happening as Chinese become more affluent
Nobody who is sane, that is for sure. No contest.

However, there are a bunch of us out here who have been playing Civ since the first version, and now have the money to buy a game like this, but would like it to run on their normal, everyday, serious-work-stuff computer. Which happens to be more and more a laptop anyway. This is a big market, PC or Mac. Firaxis realizes this, which is why Civ V is going to run on "normal" laptop graphic chips.

And since a lot -- or at least a lot more -- of those serious-work-stuff computers are now Macs, it would make sense for Firaxis to offer a Mac version. This is not rocket science if you set up the tools right. However, and this seems to be the problem, they obviously didn't. So they're in trouble, and it's increasingly looking like we Mac users are going to get ignored like it was still 1992 or something.
I'm sure the game will play acceptable with a 320M and good with a 330M and then there are the lucky people with 480M SLIs...

gaming on PCs is not passé, it is hard to make good turn based strategies without a keyboard or mouse
I think the second generation iPad might pack some more power



Well, maybe "passé" is too strong a word. (And shame on me for not using the easy Mac shortcut to put that accent on the e) But they're certainly declining in importance for the industry.

Last year, they comprised less than 1 billion of the 11 billion in combined PC and console software sales.

http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_100114.html

Also, the mobile gaming market is set to eclipse PC games:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/jul/26/newmedia.games

The thing is that the current iPad already has enough power for a lot of people--not just for games, but for most of their computing needs. We "serious gamers" are no longer the driving force in a niche industry. We're a niche in a global industry worth billions, and turn-based strategy games are a tiny niche within that niche. The old argument that there are some games you need a mouse and keyboard for just isn't going to hold water.

So, no, I think I was right the first time. We are passé.

And now for a lighter moment, the real reason to buy a Mac:

http://www.postsecret.com/2010/08/sunday-secrets_21.html

Second postcard from the bottom. I bet Firaxis could draw all those WoW-girls over to Civ V with a Mac version ... I'm happily married, so of course for me it is just for status :).

Seriously, PostSecrets is an awesome blog. Scary, sometimes.

Continuing our trend spotting: Here is Ars Technica about Macs in business (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/08/macs-making-bigger-enterprise-gains-than-rest-of-pc-market.ars):

[A]n analysis of second quarter sales shows Apple making big gains in business and government sectors. [...] Mac shipments to businesses grew 50 percent in the second quarter of 2010, beating the overall market growth of 16 percent. Sales to government organizations were up a whopping 200 percent, 16 times the overall market growth of 12 percent.

Ars remarks that this is even though Apple doesn't really focus on business, which is putting it politely, if you ask me.

More interesting for us here -- dude, you shouldn't be playing Civ on a business or government computer anyway -- they talk about virtualization with the Intel chips. Since there doesn't seem to be a Mac version of Civ V that will be ready on time -- I'm beginning to believe this is a case of "getting caught with your pants down" -- one of the first things I'm going to try with the demo is see how it runs with VirtualBox. Civ IV is just short of working with my MacBook Pro i5 (which has nested paging, which makes an enormous difference) , and I'm sure the strategic mode of Civ V will do fine, given the specs. The question is how it will do with the full graphics.

I'll be starting a separate VirtualBox thread once the demo is out; maybe somebody with a more modern Linux system (i5, i7) can test it then, too.

The second comment I saw to that article:
It's easy to make relatively large gains when your current market penetration is laughably low.Sums up my view fairly well, but perhaps minus the word 'laughably'. :)

I mean, how would someone report on the sales increase of a product that went from 0 sales to 100 sales? "That's an increase of infinity percent." :p

If we're speaking about trends, you have to accept that trends like that are short lived and ultimately mean very little if you're talking about only small numbers in the first place. More interesting would be the real increases in sales - not misleading percentages.

obviously Obama is a much more tech savvy President

If we're speaking about trends, you have to accept that trends like that are short lived and ultimately mean very little if you're talking about only small numbers in the first place.

Oh, the 200 percent growth rate won't last for ever, of course. And I guess we'll see if this trend ist "short-lived". Some here say yes. I'm saying no.

See, I started out with Linux computers back when it was this guy in Finland and some other nerds on the Internet. And people would say, please, nobody will ever use that crap, they're going to want a "real" Unix server, not some x86 junk. And today, when Linux is the base of companies like Google or the New York Stock Exchange, and Sun is being gutted by Oracle, I remember all that laughter and smile.

So, we'll just have to see where this goes. In the meantime, it would be nice if Firaxis could tell us if it is going anywhere with Civ V. It's a month till shipping (in Europe). Just how long can it take to know if you are going to be including a Mac version or not?

Oh, the 200 percent growth rate won't last for ever, of course. And I guess we'll see if this trend ist "short-lived". Some here say yes. I'm saying no.

See, I started out with Linux computers back when it was this guy in Finland and some other nerds on the Internet. And people would say, please, nobody will ever use that crap, they're going to want a "real" Unix server, not some x86 junk. And today, when Linux is the base of companies like Google or the New York Stock Exchange, and Sun is being gutted by Oracle, I remember all that laughter and smile.

So, we'll just have to see where this goes. In the meantime, it would be nice if Firaxis could tell us if it is going anywhere with Civ V. It's a month till shipping (in Europe). Just how long can it take to know if you are going to be including a Mac version or not?
Unix is beautiful bedrock

We have some new numbers for Macs on Steam (http://www.tuaw.com/2010/08/25/steam-releases-mac-stats-share-drops-to-5/). The percentage of the 25 million Steam users using Macs has dropped from the initial eight to five percent.

I can't say I'm surprised; actually, I had expected to number to go far lower. First, Valve has only released older or second-rate games for the Mac -- what everybody is really clamoring for is Left 4 Dead, not Portal 1. Second, this is the time frame when Apple had the buggy video driver, so dual booting still made sense. I expect August to be low, too, for the same reasons, and also because Blizzard released StarCraft 2 end of July, which runs perfectly on the Mac (just completed the game yesterday, BTW; no, it is not a cliffhanger). I don't think I logged into Steam myself in August at all. We'll see what happens when Valve finally gets an A-class title like Left 4 Dead for the Mac out the door.

For those interested, the Steam website has more detail on the hardware (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/?platform=mac) in use. Most popular is the MacBook Pro (look Mom, that's me!), and 83 percent use Snow Leopard, which of course is a 64 bit operating system (for the discussion in the other thread). More than 90 percent have two CPUs, and 4 GB RAM is the most common memory size (which also confirms a discussion we had elsewhere in this forum).

What I would really like to see is a statistic from a new game -- what the percentage of Mac buyers are for, say, HalfLife 2: Episode 3. Or, of course, Civ V. Now that would be really interesting, though I would probably be too busy playing the game on said MacBook Pro with 4 GB RAM and a dual-core i5 to pay much attention :).

I haven't been here in awhile but came to check on the release date for civ on mac. I am very disappointed we may not get it for awhile.

You guys are speaking another language from me (I'm not very technical) but if they aren't going to release civ on mac anytime soon, is there any way we can still play it on our macs? Let me say, I need a layman's explanation because I don't even know what steam or a port or any of that is.

You guys are speaking another language from me (I'm not very technical) but if they aren't going to release civ on mac anytime soon, is there any way we can still play it on our macs?

Yes. If you have a newer Mac, and are willing to pay for a copy of Windows, you can install a free program called Bootcamp that will let you start your computer as a Windows machine. Not totally trivial, but doable even for the laymen.

There might be other options, but they are more technical (virtualization and such), and we don't know if they will work.

I haven't been here in awhile but came to check on the release date for civ on mac. I am very disappointed we may not get it for awhile.

You guys are speaking another language from me (I'm not very technical) but if they aren't going to release civ on mac anytime soon, is there any way we can still play it on our macs? Let me say, I need a layman's explanation because I don't even know what steam or a port or any of that is.
Yes. If you have a newer Mac, and are willing to pay for a copy of Windows, you can install a free program called Bootcamp that will let you start your computer as a Windows machine. Not totally trivial, but doable even for the laymen.

There might be other options, but they are more technical (virtualization and such), and we don't know if they will work.

Isn't Bootcamp pre-installed? It's made by Apple so it's easy to use

It's included in 10.6, can't remember about 10.5.

The only user input Bootcamp needs is how the user wants to resize the OS X partition. The only point you can really screw it up is in the Windows installation, if you decide to choose the wrong partition.

You obviously need a copy of Windows as well (so would you for virtualization); the only way around that requirement is by using WINE/Crossover, and that's never really super user friendly.

I'm clearing out some space on my HD for a Windows partition. I'm just not confident enough in Wine/Crossover after my experience with it. I went ahead and got Parallels, though.

The problem right now is that my MBP has got some glitch when it comes to 3D. Any game turns it into a snail. So she's off to Apple for repair before Civ5 comes out.

We have some new numbers for Macs on Steam (http://www.tuaw.com/2010/08/25/steam-releases-mac-stats-share-drops-to-5/). The percentage of the 25 million Steam users using Macs has dropped from the initial eight to five percent.

I can't say I'm surprised; actually, I had expected to number to go far lower. First, Valve has only released older or second-rate games for the Mac -- what everybody is really clamoring for is Left 4 Dead, not Portal 1. Second, this is the time frame when Apple had the buggy video driver, so dual booting still made sense. I expect August to be low, too, for the same reasons, and also because Blizzard released StarCraft 2 end of July, which runs perfectly on the Mac (just completed the game yesterday, BTW; no, it is not a cliffhanger). I don't think I logged into Steam myself in August at all. We'll see what happens when Valve finally gets an A-class title like Left 4 Dead for the Mac out the door.

For those interested, the Steam website has more detail on the hardware (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/?platform=mac) in use. Most popular is the MacBook Pro (look Mom, that's me!), and 83 percent use Snow Leopard, which of course is a 64 bit operating system (for the discussion in the other thread). More than 90 percent have two CPUs, and 4 GB RAM is the most common memory size (which also confirms a discussion we had elsewhere in this forum).

What I would really like to see is a statistic from a new game -- what the percentage of Mac buyers are for, say, HalfLife 2: Episode 3. Or, of course, Civ V. Now that would be really interesting, though I would probably be too busy playing the game on said MacBook Pro with 4 GB RAM and a dual-core i5 to pay much attention :).

Your dedicated and devoted. I will give you that.
For what it is worth, I logged my Hackintosh onto Steam to give the numbers a bump ;)

Incidentally since you think it matters, the fastest growing OS usage is Windows 7 *gasp* 64 bit. Seems even that "advantage" is slipping away for OSX. Civ 5 native for Mac...I say Q1 2012 (guessing of course)

Your dedicated and devoted. I will give you that.
For what it is worth, I logged my Hackintosh onto Steam to give the numbers a bump ;)

Incidentally since you think it matters, the fastest growing OS usage is Windows 7 *gasp* 64 bit. Seems even that "advantage" is slipping away for OSX. Civ 5 native for Mac...I say Q1 2012 (guessing of course)

It's true. I just admitted above that after almost a decade as a mac user I'm tempted to use windows again for the first time--not for windows itself, of course, but just that I'd consider it shows that Windows has at least become acceptable.

I hear lots of good things about Windows 7, but I still maintain it's too little too late for Microsoft. They've got jack for phones and tablets and that's where the money's heading. The next OS from Apple will probably merge iOS and OS X into a touch-screen happy super OS that can run on touch-sensitive iMacs, Macbooks with facing touchscreens (like a sexier DS) and whatever other little gadgets they can think up.

Microsoft is going to be what IBM was in the 80's. A boring company that sells office software. Apple and Google own the next era of technological growth.

Windows 7 has support for tablets and touch screens not to mention they came out with a failed tablet years ago (before netbooks). They also have Windows 7 mobile which has a load of Xbox live games coming out.

http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/111/1113431p1.html

I wouldn't say they don't have jack; and if the xbox is any indication it shows Microsoft is willing to take a hit to break into a market.

Windows 7 has support for tablets and touch screens not to mention they came out with a failed tablet years ago (before netbooks). They also have Windows 7 mobile which has a load of Xbox live games coming out.

http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/111/1113431p1.html

I wouldn't say they don't have jack; and if the xbox is any indication it shows Microsoft is willing to take a hit to break into a market.

Good point. I guess I'm just so biased based on MS's track record of innovation that I really felt like they'd finally met their match in Apple and Google. I know that in terms of recent history their efforts to break into phones and tablets have been dismal, but maybe you're right. Maybe they'll have more staying power than I give them credit for.

I'm just saying that Microsoft is way behind and for once, their Windows monopoly isn't much of an advantage. They still have the liquidity that let them break in with the Xbox and become a stake holder in that industry, but Apple's doing even better on that front and Android's got the lead in market share.

Hmm, Microsoft as underdog? Gosh, I usually root for underdogs, but I can't quite get into their corner after their checkered past.

I want to use bootcamp on me mac, but the cheapest Windows OS (7) is over $100! When I updated to 10.6, it was only ten bucks.

I want to use bootcamp on me mac, but the cheapest Windows OS (7) is over $100! When I updated to 10.6, it was only ten bucks.

buy Home Premium off a student it's like $60 that way




It wouldn't be hard to layer iOS on OS X, only difficulty would be a stylish Apple way of interfacing with the machine

Good point. I guess I'm just so biased based on MS's track record of innovation that I really felt like they'd finally met their match in Apple and Google. I know that in terms of recent history their efforts to break into phones and tablets have been dismal, but maybe you're right. Maybe they'll have more staying power than I give them credit for.

I'm just saying that Microsoft is way behind and for once, their Windows monopoly isn't much of an advantage. They still have the liquidity that let them break in with the Xbox and become a stake holder in that industry, but Apple's doing even better on that front and Android's got the lead in market share.

Hmm, Microsoft as underdog? Gosh, I usually root for underdogs, but I can't quite get into their corner after their checkered past.

The reason I think this initiative from Microsoft is more noteworthy is because of the strength of their existing properties in it. Easy use and good compatibility with Win7 plus the connection to Xbox live is the leverage that might actually make them successful. I would still see Windows as an advantage with the good press and general public opinion around Win7.

Microsoft has its ups and downs, and it is about due for an up in the mobile space. So it will either be great or totally suck.

Microsoft has its ups and downs, and it is about due for an up in the mobile space. So it will either be great or totally suck.

Well, it's not like we have lots of new info about the Mac version of Civ V to discuss, so ...

I had my hands on an iPad for the first time yesterday -- a co-worker had bought one after a tech showed him his (we are a Microsoft-only company where all the tech staff uses Macs at home) -- and it is really, truly, one of those OMG things. Not so much the interface, which is just a bigger version of the iPhone / iPod Touch, but the way it feels when you hold it, its weight, how solid it is. The ebook readers I've picked up all felt like, well, plastic. The iPad, on the other hand, is the mobile gadget equivalent to a well-balanced sword. You pick it up and go, wow.

Two more co-works said, okay, they were going to buy one now too. It is sort of like an infection. My wife and I are going to wait until Christmas.

Microsoft's problem is not that they can't create great software (at least when their developers manage to fight off the mindless marketing droids of death), it is that they have no control over the total package. You can live with ugly desktop computers, but the moment you are talking about something mobile, it can't look, like, say, a Zune or your generic Dell plastic-case laptop. You need something that people will like to show off, like the first iPhone, like the iPad. Silly, but true.

Apple has Jonathan Ive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ive), who in interviews comes across as rather, um, odd, and obviously marches to his own drummer, but just so happens to be brilliant. His boss, Steve Jobs, might be a borderline psychotic ego-maniac, but knows when to let the creative guys do their stuff (something the Pixar people keep talking about -- Jobs stays out of the creative process). So you need a genius designer and a boss who doesn't have to poke his nose in everything, and keeps the marketing people off the backs of the developers and designers.

This is not Microsoft. They do not have this kind of design talent, and Steve Ballmer is not a visionary. This will not work, unless they rip their corporate culture up and start over again in a garage. Given their current profits, they are not going to change a thing, or at least not enough. They are not going to do well in mobile, short of nuking Infinity Drive.

The question for us is, of course, can you put a version of Civ V that is not like Revolution (hiss!) on the iPad. The screen isn't huge, but moving units with your fingers should be awesome. That's the next question for Firaxis once we have the OS X version out the door. Sometime.

I agree that Microsoft's biggest obstacle is Microsoft. We've seen how a lot of companies just can't adapt to the changing landscape in these new smart device markets, and they're a pretty prominent member of that list.

But Matt's got a point also. As right as you are about Microsoft's shortcomings in innovation, one thing they are is persistent. They have tended to get what they want...eventually.

On the gaming front, though, your last question is a great one. Except it's not a matter of "can." The iPad clearly has the processor muscle to run a game like Civ 4, and a scalable Civ 5 could have the graphics toned down to run on the iPad. Will they, though, is a different question. So far, the games market on portable devices has thrived because of low price points. I paid $5 for Civ Rev on my iPhone. That's $45 less than I paid for my PS3 version.

Now Matt points out that Microsoft is looking to port some real games into the mobile arena. Can they change the nature of the market? Will people pay for full game experiences on portables? The future of complex, engaging entertainment software like Civ will depend on that answer.

I agree that Microsoft's biggest obstacle is Microsoft. We've seen how a lot of companies just can't adapt to the changing landscape in these new smart device markets, and they're a pretty prominent member of that list.

But Matt's got a point also. As right as you are about Microsoft's shortcomings in innovation, one thing they are is persistent. They have tended to get what they want...eventually.

On the gaming front, though, your last question is a great one. Except it's not a matter of "can." The iPad clearly has the processor muscle to run a game like Civ 4, and a scalable Civ 5 could have the graphics toned down to run on the iPad. Will they, though, is a different question. So far, the games market on portable devices has thrived because of low price points. I paid $5 for Civ Rev on my iPhone. That's $45 less than I paid for my PS3 version.

Now Matt points out that Microsoft is looking to port some real games into the mobile arena. Can they change the nature of the market? Will people pay for full game experiences on portables? The future of complex, engaging entertainment software like Civ will depend on that answer.

Microsoft has realized it's fracked because of DLLs, end DLLs and prevent lots of virus and break most programs or don't change it remain virus ridden and don't break programs, either way Microsoft loses

Microsoft has realized it's fracked because of DLLs, end DLLs and prevent lots of virus and break most programs or don't change it remain virus ridden and don't break programs, either way Microsoft loses

Switching from using DLLs to something else (statically linking everything?) wouldn't prevent malware.

I want to use bootcamp on me mac, but the cheapest Windows OS (7) is over $100! When I updated to 10.6, it was only ten bucks.

Two words: Student pricing.

Two words: Student pricing.

you have to admit $10 and not having to reinstall stuff is nice (the full priced upgrade was ~$25)

Screw, wait, no, >>Snip<< Firaxis for never in their history porting to mac on release ala Blizzard! :mad: I know it's been said before, but seeing the footage today made me want to say it myself! >>Snip<< their craptacularness!

Inappropriate Language. While I agree with your anger, I disagree with the way you went about expressing it.