About a Mac version: Some numbers from (yes) Steam

What exactly does active users mean? Can you please point me again to the source of that chart? (EDIT... nvm, found it: here) 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.

 

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 ...

 

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

 

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?

 

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.)

 

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...

10.6.4 screws over drivers

probably by number of Macs wanting updates

it's "Mac" not "MAC"!

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?

 

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.

 

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 ?

 

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.)

 

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

 

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 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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.
(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)

 

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 ) 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

 

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.

 

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.)