posted
Mine is old and slow, and can't handle the games I want to play. And I really do want to play games.
I think I would mostly use it for the games I want to play, the internet, and assorted media storage/creation.
I've been reading a lot about Macs recently and am wondering whether or not I should give it a shot. My only concern is whether the PC function of the Mac is fast enough to handle the games I'd want to play. Any advice/suggestions/experiences?
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had good luck on the PC front with www.ibuypower.com, bought my current desktop from there and just like how fully customizable the system is. It's basically building a system from scratch without having to do the legwork yourself. Also seemed to have fairly good prices. I'm sure there are other similar sites out there, and as I've only gotten the one thing from there I can't really speak fully to their quality/reliability etc...
On the Mac front, I've been hearing that it's really easy to set up the new intel macs to run windows, which is part of why I recently got a macbook pro rather than some dell laptop or what have you. I haven't ponied up for another copy of windows yet, so I can't speak personally to that performance, but I will say that my copy of WoW works about as well on my lappy as it does on my desktop so...
The one thing I've found somewhat frustrating, though it's getting better, is that there's still a fair amount of stuff that hasn't been adapted to the intel-macs (i.e. Openoffice just got a working english release for the intel macs last week)
posted
I bought an IBM/lenovo notebook several months ago. It was kinda pricy but its been exactly what I wanted so far.
On a mostly unrelated note, I find that the trackpoint is actually easier to use most of the time that the trackpad. The only thing it lacks is a good middle click (makes firefox tabs a pain.)
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mac user interface standards are higher; you'll get better versions of the games, for those games that exist in both worlds.
Some (many?) games only exist in the PC world.
I don't know how fast PC games run on the new Macs. Running Windows programs on Macs used to be a terrible idea for speed, but I have heard that things have changed. I'm not sure how much.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The MacBooks are just as fast as an equivalent Windows machine - because there's no difference in hardware.
However:
You have two ways to run Windows on the new Intel Macs.
1) BootCamp is a free beta platform from Apple, allowing you to dual-boot your machine between OS X and Windows. So: day-to-day stuff, run OS X. Wanna play games, reboot into Windows for the stuff that's Windows only. Full speed, no problems, it *is* a Windows laptop when you do it that way.
2) Parallels is a 'Virtual Machine' allowing you to run Windows inside OS X. It's pretty fast in general for low power apps if you absolutely need your fix of ugly and have to run the Windows version of Office. Games - no go. The graphics support is fully CPU driven and doesn't yet support the video cards properly. Don't even try, you'll go mad if you do.
In both cases you need a legit copy of Windows to install on the machine. In both cases the setup is pretty easy. If you want to do both, you'll need *two* copies of Windows as BootCamp and Parallels runs from different partitions.
posted
The new MacPros are $500 cheaper than a Dell of the same configuration. If you buy a MacPro, lower the RAM as far as it will go and get 3rd party because Apple overcharges for RAM. Be careful getting the 3rd party RAM because only one type will work in them.
Windows runs fine on Intel Macs. If you boot to Windows, it runs at native speeds. If you run it virtualized in Parallels or VMWare (when it is released), the hit isn't that bad I've heard (but like Troub said, don't play games).
And yeah, you will need a Windows installer too.
The new Macs use dual core chips. If you take a normal single core chip and overclock it 15%, it consumes 50% more power and produces 50% more heat. If you underclock it 15%, it consumes 50% less power and produces 50% less heat. Dual core consists of 2 underclocked "cores" in one chip. Each chips produces 50% less heat and power consumption than normal, but together, they take the same power and produce the same heat and as a chip at 100% speed. The main advantage is that the 2 cores now perform 70% faster than the single chip.
This is what the new Intel Macs are using and yeah, they are REALLY fast. I've got a 2.0 MacBook and it is so much faster than everything I've used before and it is a laptop!
PC's can use the dual core chips too and if you can upgrade your CPU, that is certainly the cheapest solution. But your bus and everything else better be pretty beefy.
I think there are a few things a lot of PC users don't like about Macs. Apple's marketing is pretty heavy. Macs typically aren't as easily customized as PC's (they can be, but most Mac users don't, so it isn't as well documented as PC mods). And Apple has a totally different software and hardware support and upgrade model than Microsoft and other companies.
For example, after Apple releases Leopard next spring, Bootcamp (used to boot Windows on Intel Macs) might not remain "free". It will be a part of Leopard. But if you get an Intel Mac, and you use OS X at all, you would have to be insane not to get Leopard because the features are freakin awesome (IMHO ).
But I try to warn everyone new to Mac. Apple releases OS updates about once every other year. OS updates are about $150. You kinda get use to paying Apple money often. And never install the .0 version on a critical machine (10.5.0) because it will be VERY buggy, as 10.4.0, 10.3.0, 10.2.0, 10.1.0, and 10.0.0 all were. In fact, I didn't consider 10.4 stable until 10.4.4, and it wasn't stable in my work environment until 10.4.6 (released a few months ago).
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I rather liked ecollege pc. I got my new computer off of ebay because it had a three year warranty and a pretty good price even though I didn't get every ridiculous thing i wanted like a 200 dollar video card.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's an article in the most recent issue of PC Gamer (October 2006 ish, Company of Heroes cover) about dual booting Intel core Macs with Boot Camp. Might be worth a look.
My one big warning with PCs is, if you buy one without a video card with the intent of installing one later, find out the voltage of the power supply. Many low-priced computers still come with 250v power supplies, and you really ought to have at least a 400v power supply to use most recent video cards (check the specs on any video card you might be interested in installing.)
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yup, I bought a PC, and it's pretty insane. I think 450v. Any more advice on upgrading it later would find a home in my head.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: 450wATTS, but volts does sound cooler.
Right... Watts... Sorry, sleep deficient...
EDIT:
Random note, for which this seemed a good place:
I just purchased a "registry clean/repair" utility, which came in a disk envelope, in a box.
The activation code for this software came on a bright orange sticker... Pasted right across the flap of the envelope. Sooooo, to access the disk, you have to remove the sticker, which may mean tearing your activation code.
Bless the package designers, and their tiny little brains.
posted
I have almost no excuse. I should have paid attention in Physics, but I had two very distractingly attractive lab partners.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One warning about running Windows on a Mac laptop. It has only one button. I the desktops come with 4 buttom mice with a really nice scroll wheel though.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
if your gaming, you're going to want to use a multi-button mouse anyway. I use a 4 button+scrool wheel microsoft track ball. Works w/out any downloaded/installed drivers (ie they're built in, just plug it in and go). My 3.5 yr old powerbook g4 runs WoW w/out any problems.
Posts: 187 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Was, now running pro on a Mac and is only a little flasky but it's windows on a Mac I would be flabergasted if it actually didn't have problems. Interested to see what they do in the new release of Leopard?
Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, while wattage is important, its not as important as implied above. Most systems (even high-end systems) need more than 400W. Even maxing out on an online calculator got me to 370W. You don't need more than 400W if you are absolutely bleeding edge and doing multiple video cards... What you DO need to look out for is clean power; a lot of cheapo power supplies aren't good at supplying clean steady power.
For my computer research, I check out arstechnica.com's system guides (always updated every 3-4 months) and use mwave.com to construct barebones systems.
posted
Yeah, when we have brown outs at work you can tell the machines with good power supplies because they will still be running, but the others are all restarting...
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it funny that most of my friends that voice their support for Macs, only use them after they've customized them with a number of Microsoft things, inluding Windows itself.
But then, both companies have thair strengths and faults. Such is the nature of free market competition
Anyway, the best advice I can give to you concerning upgrades is this: Make sure everything you want to buy will work and FIT into your motherboard. Your 450w power supply should be good enough too, so don't worry about that. Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Saephon: I find it funny that most of my friends that voice their support for Macs, only use them after they've customized them with a number of Microsoft things, inluding Windows itself.
Believe me I wouldn't be running windows at all except for the fact that I design and program for the web. Hence windows needs to be running so I can test multiplatform without having to bug my coworkers. Safari is a much better browser but IE is used by 90+% of the world.
MACs rock! But for some reason people all use PCs.
Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: If you buy a MacPro, lower the RAM as far as it will go and get 3rd party because Apple overcharges for RAM. Be careful getting the 3rd party RAM because only one type will work in them.
Do NOT buy 3rd party RAM for a Mac Pro yet. Apple is using proprietary heat sinks on the RAM in the Mac Pro, and if you put in 3rd party RAM, it will run too hot, causing the machine to run the fans more or run the memory slower. Wait a few months for a company like Crucial or Corsair to release RAM with a heat sink matching Apple's specs.
And thank you, Jay, for that thoroughly outdated and inaccurate video. Nice to see some people still hold on to old stupidities.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by narrativium: And thank you, Jay, for that thoroughly outdated and inaccurate video. Nice to see some people still hold on to old stupidities.
Aaaah, quit being such a fan boy. It's a freaking computer.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is probably a silly question, but I don't care because I want to know:
I choose between the VGA cable and the DVI cable, right? I don't do both? And the DVI is better? What does it do and why does it have (optional) next to it?
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not the cable that matters, its what the vid card uses (and the monitor, of course). VGA is an analog standard, DVI is a digital standard. Most vid cards do VGA, but a lot of vid cards are doing DVI nowadays. There are adapters, of course (a friend with a mac might part with one cheap -- macs pretty much all do DVI, and come with a DVI to VGA adapter).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you're saying the ability to make decisions regarding these cables is out of my hands? Because that would be awesome.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it depends. If your computer has DVI out and the monitor has DVI in, use the DVI cable (for crying out loud). DVI allows much greater clarity than VGA, in part due to the nature of analog vs. digital, but also because DVI utilizes more wires to transfer information. If you use on-board video, you're stuck with VGA only. If you have a video card of almost any type (assuming it costs more than about 50 dollars) it very likely has both VGA and DVI. It has "optional" next to it because there are still many monitors out there that are not DVI capable. I have yet to see a CRT monitor with a DVI in connector, and almost all budget LCD monitors only have a VGA connector as well (Think any LCD available from Dell on a computer that costs less than 1000 dollars as well as any LCD included in budget computers from almost all other PC manufacturers). And the adapters (To convert DVI to VGA) usually cost about 15 bucks Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Mac in that video looks just like the one that I use for work. One of the most irritating things about it is that when there's a problem, a little window pops up to tell me that Finder needs my attention. I mean, the little window pops up, I click to get rid of it and sometimes another window pops up to tell me about Finder again. Why can't Finder tell me itself? Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
into your motherboard. Your 450w power supply should be good enough too, so don't worry about that. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
