Hoping for a Mac version right out of the box!

[civ_king]

Nobody's buying Macs because they last longer. My PC can certainly outlast any of your Mac purchases, by the very virtue of hardware compatibility. Instead of buying a new computer every couple of years, all I need to do is exchange/upgrade a component that's broken/outdated. Go ahead and compare prices for Mac and PC components - the difference is scary. As was already stated in this thread - arguing that Macs are somehow cheaper than PCs is just plain silly. In the end you are paying a lot of extra money for that little Apple sticker on it (i.e. marketing), and lack of direct hardware competitor.

The only time I would see myself buying a Mac, is if I was going to buy a computer for my parents/grandparents. I made a mistake of buying a Vista laptop for my mom, and spent a lot of time getting her to the point where she can use it without my help. Macs are perfect for the computer illiterate.

we are having a hard time convincing each other because we are arguing about different things

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: please return to a game related discussion - you are all welcome to make your opinion about Mac vs. PC heard in the Computer Talk subforum.

 

[civ_king]

this got off topic on post #21, I see no chance of it getting back on track, I respectfully request thread closure

 

[EmpireOfCats]

The windows OS is completely usable for what I wish to achieve.

Hmmm. Maybe you might want to look at Linux? When it comes to actual work -- non-video, that is -- it is more than enough, it is totally free, and will run on anything from embedded systems to mainframes. Needs a bit of hand-holding, though, and sucks on laptops, which is what is driving a lot of the Linux people to MacBooks (the reason I switched, actually). Still, depending on what you do for a living, you might want to take a look.

This is actually relevant to the discussion because not only will Valve support OS X versions out of the box, there are more and more rumors of a Linux version. If this is true (a big "if" at the moment), then they have been very clever with their tool chain. This would mean that you simply don't have to care about the operating system, which is taking a page from Google's philosophy.

Will this be relevant to sales? Well, remember you'll buy one copy of the game and you can download it on as may computers as you like without having to care about the operating system. So taking about "Windows sale", "Mac sales" or (maybe) "Linux sales" becomes moot. They just sell system agnostic games. It's like asking if Google Mail will work on Linux or OS X.

What this would do is cut down the minimal total cost of ownership for a machine that only plays games beyond anything that Apple or Dell or whoever could dream of offering. Buy exactly the parts you want for the lowest price you can find, install Ubuntu as the OS (free), ignore anti-virus software (an additional cost for Microsoft operating systems), and start gaming.

Again, Firaxis is competing with Valve for time, attention and game budgets, if not (currently) directly going head-to-head for individual games. The easier it is for me to just drop into a game from my work setup, the more I will play it (the "FarmVille effect"). It would be nice if Firaxis could make it just as easy to play Civ V on any machine and any operating system. This whole thread would never have been necessary, for one thing. And if Valve can do it, it can't be magic.

Though of course nobody would ever get any real work done in their lives ever again .

 

[Chalks]

Hmmm. Maybe you might want to look at Linux?

Unfortunately, what I wish to achieve is developing applications targeted at windows machines and playing a very wide variety of games - both of which are not possible conveniently on a Linux system.

I do own a laptop running Unbuntu however, which if nothing else has taught me that the interface of said operating system is no significant improvement over Windows what so ever and frequently has me tearing my hair out trying to RTFM to achieve the simplest thing.

Call it lack of experience if you wish, but I see no significant benefit to be had from making it my primary OS.

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: moved to Computer Talk

 

[civ_king]

Hmmm. Maybe you might want to look at Linux? When it comes to actual work -- non-video, that is -- it is more than enough, it is totally free, and will run on anything from embedded systems to mainframes. Needs a bit of hand-holding, though, and sucks on laptops, which is what is driving a lot of the Linux people to MacBooks (the reason I switched, actually). Still, depending on what you do for a living, you might want to take a look.

This is actually relevant to the discussion because not only will Valve support OS X versions out of the box, there are more and more rumors of a Linux version. If this is true (a big "if" at the moment), then they have been very clever with their tool chain. This would mean that you simply don't have to care about the operating system, which is taking a page from Google's philosophy.

Will this be relevant to sales? Well, remember you'll buy one copy of the game and you can download it on as may computers as you like without having to care about the operating system. So taking about "Windows sale", "Mac sales" or (maybe) "Linux sales" becomes moot. They just sell system agnostic games. It's like asking if Google Mail will work on Linux or OS X.

What this would do is cut down the minimal total cost of ownership for a machine that only plays games beyond anything that Apple or Dell or whoever could dream of offering. Buy exactly the parts you want for the lowest price you can find, install Ubuntu as the OS (free), ignore anti-virus software (an additional cost for Microsoft operating systems), and start gaming.

Again, Firaxis is competing with Valve for time, attention and game budgets, if not (currently) directly going head-to-head for individual games. The easier it is for me to just drop into a game from my work setup, the more I will play it (the "FarmVille effect"). It would be nice if Firaxis could make it just as easy to play Civ V on any machine and any operating system. This whole thread would never have been necessary, for one thing. And if Valve can do it, it can't be magic.

Though of course nobody would ever get any real work done in their lives ever again .

kudos to Valve, I'm sure that there will be some money in this for them, they are motivated by the almighty $$$ so they have a reason for this,

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Unfortunately, what I wish to achieve is developing applications targeted at windows machines and playing a very wide variety of games - both of which are not possible conveniently on a Linux system.

I do own a laptop running Unbuntu however, which if nothing else has taught me that the interface of said operating system is no significant improvement over Windows what so ever and frequently has me tearing my hair out trying to RTFM to achieve the simplest thing.

Call it lack of experience if you wish, but I see no significant benefit to be had from making it my primary OS.

Once you learn how it functions, it's a lot more powerful and a lot more configurable than Windows. I agree with you on the learning curve bit. It's one of the shortcomings of modern Linux and Unix distro's, in that they're not overly user friendly. Ubuntu is trying to change that, and so far they're making good progress.

 

[Skwink]

Nobody's buying Macs because they last longer. My PC can certainly outlast any of your Mac purchases, by the very virtue of hardware compatibility. Instead of buying a new computer every couple of years, all I need to do is exchange/upgrade a component that's broken/outdated. Go ahead and compare prices for Mac and PC components - the difference is scary. As was already stated in this thread - arguing that Macs are somehow cheaper than PCs is just plain silly. In the end you are paying a lot of extra money for that little Apple sticker on it (i.e. marketing), and lack of direct hardware competitor.

The only time I would see myself buying a Mac, is if I was going to buy a computer for my parents/grandparents. I made a mistake of buying a Vista laptop for my mom, and spent a lot of time getting her to the point where she can use it without my help. Macs are perfect for the computer illiterate.

I had a Mac and a pc once. My mac was a iMac G4. My Mac is still running after 10 years, but my pc broke in three, and is now out in my garage. But you are right, Macs are better for people who don't want to go through a lot of trouble.

BTW I love it when someone brings a simple thing about Macs up, and the pc people start arguing how they have better comps.

Sorry for the Bump.

 

[Methos]

I disagree on the PC argument. My wife and I bought a high end Dell PC in December of 2004 and it barely lasted five years. I upgraded several components, but in the end, it just couldn't hold out. At the time I really didn't want to deal with Windows 7, so I chose to go the Mac route instead and I love it!

The only way I can see the argument as having any truth is if the owner built the PC from scratch and built it in such a way that it was able to be continuously upgraded and then hoping that future hardware was built/designed in such a way that it could be used on the old framework (i.e. tower).

A comment from a co-worker that I find very true, is that PC users are good at fixing computers, because they have too. Whereas Mac users are not good at computer repair, because there's no need to be.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Barely 5 years? You do realize thats about 2 lifetimes for a computer? Of course it couldnt hold out, technology changes a lot in 5 years.

Few PC's are built with the mind to upgrade the major components past 2 years of life. At that point its more cost effective to buy new parts rather than keep putting money into an old rig.

You also mention it was a Dell. Most Dell's are marketed to the same market as the Macs are: the user with little computer literacy wanting a simple computer that will just work.

Your coworker is also partially wrong. PC users are good at fixing computers because those that do fix their own belong to a more computer literate demographic that knows they can do it. I would also like to add that most of the issues I have had with my computer in the last year have been hardware, which are just as likely in a Mac.

I am glad that you like your Mac, but lets just say this: in 5 years, it will be even worse off than a pc of comparable age.

 

[Skwink]

2.5 years is as long as they should last?! Maybe that's why Microsoft sells so many computers, kinda like X-Boxes. Like I said, my 10 year old iMac G4 is slowing, but can surf the net and do many other things I need it to.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

For gaming and intensive tasks. A computer can ideally last much longer, but after 2-3 years you shouldnt expect to be able to upgrade it to top of the line any longer. Ive got 12 year old systems that can still do basic browsing and office work just fine, but I wouldnt even try games newer than 8 years old on it.

 

[civ_king]

As long it's a Mac Pro it can handle new games for a while

 

[Genocidicbunny]

You can get much faster parts for a windows/linux box for the same price you would pay for a Mac Pro.

 

[civ_king]

You can get much faster parts for a windows/linux box for the same price you would pay for a Mac Pro.

Dual processors? Yes I know you can get faster processors, the Mac Pro really needs a refresh

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Yeah, dual processors is pretty easy to get. You may need a slightly pricier server motherboard, but it is still quite possible.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Not sure why the Intel i5 520M 32 nm and Nvidia graphics on my new MacBook Pro is supposed to be "crap hardware" but okay on a Windows machine, but let's skip that part and go to the other hardware. For example, the solid piece of metal the MacBook Pro's body is made out of.

Pick up your Dell laptop or ThinkPad or whatever you use as a base for your Ubuntu or Gentoo or whatever, grab the sides, and flex. If anything shifts or bends at all or the case actually makes a noise, that's the crap hardware. Hardware is more than chips, though they might not teach that in computer science class. It's the whole package. You might not care, but a few million of us do, and are willing to pay a little more for something well-built and designed with attention to detail. This is why Apple is making money hand over fist.

I have the latest model MBP 13 ($1500 for a Core 2 duo and integrated graphics, seriously??), an Alienware m11x (Core i7 $1050), and the new aluminum Envy 14 ($1200). The components of the Mac are abyssmal compared to the other two.

The MBP - Core 2 duo, low res monitor(some Adobe apps don't fit), integrated Nvidia graphics, 320gb 5400 rpm hd, 4gb ram
The Alienware - Core i7, higher res 11in monitor, dedicated 1gb graphics, 500gb 7200rpm hd, 4gb ram, I get the same battery life as the MBP.

The build qaulity of the 11in Alienware is on par with the Mac and actually better than the aluminum Envy. Solid construction and a metal chassis do not explain the price difference, trends and brand recognition do. I like the Mac but I can't help but think that fanboys that defend their prices are driving up the cost for consumers who deserve better value.

I was going for the 15" form factor, 17" is impractical for travel, and @7200 isn't much faster than @5400, but it does produce much more heat and bad for battery life, plus likes to set off Sudden Motion Sensor

I did a manual upgrade to 7200rpm on my MBP and the battery life is the same, heat is the same, and it's actually quieter. Pretty much everyone on the Mac boards has had the same result. This is really only an issue with certain brands and mostly older models. The price difference when you aren't buying the hd from Apple can be as little as $10.

so 13.84% more initially and 19% cheaper long run, extreme price gouging eh?

Compare it to the aluminum HP Envy and the MBP gets crushed, with less features and almost a $1000 price difference (things like 8gb ram and hd upgrade is standard on many Envy configurations but makes the Mac's price sckyrocket).

If travel and battery life are an issue you can go with a 14in PC (way better for travel) and get almost the same specs and good battery life. With a Mac you are stuck with a 15in if you want Core i7, high res monitor, and dedicated graphics. Point being sub 15in MBP configurations are so crappy, you really need a 15in.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I disagree on the PC argument. My wife and I bought a high end Dell PC in December of 2004 and it barely lasted five years. I upgraded several components, but in the end, it just couldn't hold out. At the time I really didn't want to deal with Windows 7, so I chose to go the Mac route instead and I love it!

Lol 2004? That has nothing to do with PCs or Macs today. Also there are many other brands besides Dell. You are basically saying you don't have the experience to make this argument.

A comment from a co-worker that I find very true, is that PC users are good at fixing computers, because they have too. Whereas Mac users are not good at computer repair, because there's no need to be.

How do you find this true when you haven't bought a PC since 2004? Also, Macs and PCs share most of the same components, while failures are usually rooted with the manufacturer of those components.

 

[civ_king]

I have the latest model MBP 13 ($1500 for a Core 2 duo and integrated graphics, seriously??), an Alienware m11x (Core i7 $1050), and the new aluminum Envy 14 ($1200). The components of the Mac are abyssmal compared to the other two.

The MBP - Core 2 duo, low res monitor(some Adobe apps don't fit), integrated Nvidia graphics, 320gb 5400 rpm hd, 4gb ram
The Alienware - Core i7, higher res 11in monitor, dedicated 1gb graphics, 500gb 7200rpm hd, 4gb ram, I get the same battery life as the MBP.

The build qaulity of the 11in Alienware is on par with the Mac and actually better than the aluminum Envy. Solid construction and a metal chassis do not explain the price difference, trends and brand recognition do. I like the Mac but I can't help but think that fanboys that defend their prices are driving up the cost for consumers who deserve better value.



I did a manual upgrade to 7200rpm on my MBP and the battery life is the same, heat is the same, and it's actually quieter. Pretty much everyone on the Mac boards has had the same result. This is really only an issue with certain brands and mostly older models. The price difference when you aren't buying the hd from Apple can be as little as $10.



Compare it to the aluminum HP Envy and the MBP gets crushed, with less features and almost a $1000 price difference (things like 8gb ram and hd upgrade is standard on many Envy configurations but makes the Mac's price sckyrocket).

If travel and battery life are an issue you can go with a 14in PC (way better for travel) and get almost the same specs and good battery life. With a Mac you are stuck with a 15in if you want Core i7, high res monitor, and dedicated graphics. Point being sub 15in MBP configurations are so crappy, you really need a 15in.

It is a known fact that Apple gouges you on all HDD and RAM upgrades (OWC FTW)
It's not the construction/chassis that makes people pay heaps for it, it is OS X

Bolded is winner in each Category
Alienware:
CPU: two cores @1.2GHz (Didn't know i7s were twice as fast as C2Ds)
RAM: 4GB @800MHz
HDD: 250GB @7200RPM
LCD: 768p
extras: Bluetooth @$20, Optical Drive @$65 (WTH no optical?),
Cost: $1,283.99

MacBook Pro 13":
CPU: two cores @2.4GHz
RAM: 4GB @1066MHz
HDD: 250GB @5400
LCD: 800p
Cost: $1,199.00

The MBP would look even better if I upgraded m11x to Ultimate ($150), I concede that the m11x has more VRAM, but its regular RAM is slower.


MBP 15" Core i5 @2.40GHz $1,828.00
Envy 14.5" Core i5 @2.40GHz $1,724.99

CPU is the same model
I tried to match the Envy as close as I could to the base MBP, except you can't match the OS so I left the Envy with Home Premium, an upgrade to Professional would make it more expensive... so much for the vaunted MBP killer

Your move