Mac vs PC

[GreNME]

It would seem that you have completely ignored my previous statements (that I even pointed out in the post you're getting so fired up over) about the economic and market concerns regarding Mac being such a small share of the market. Please back up a second and go re-read that.

You made a claim about the gaming development industry, one that was completely backwards and false. The companies developing games aren't driven by the enthusiast market, plain and simple. The answer for why game developers don't develop for the Mac most of the time is simple mathematics: Macs make up somewhere between 5-7% of the consumer computer market (this may have changed, I'm basing this off old data); if the Mac market itself is similar to the larger computer market, then somewhere between 50-70% of them will even be interested in gaming, and a majority of those will buy only a few titles. So, essentially, unless they already have projects or relationships that involve Mac programmers, then 3.5-5% of the market isn't really significant enough of an incentive for them to develop. Nothing inherent about Macs or PCs in those numbers, just looking at where the revenue stream lies. Attributing any more than that is pure conjecture. No one has to "learn how to develop their games for a unix based OS," it's about the extra hurdle of writing specifically for the Macintosh. If a game developer made games for the Mac the way some of the Linux games out there worked, Mac users would be unsatisfied that it isn't as simple as dropping a folder into the Apps directory (Mac 'apps' are folders with the binaries and libraries together in an executable package).

I'm not the one bashing a particular computer company here, so I'm not entirely sure what "qualified statements of an objective nature" you're referring to, but I have been continually saying that this is about preference. In fact, I've said repeatedly that I think this whole thing is stupid because of the unquantifiable nature of said preferences.

What exactly are you disagreeing with me on?

When challenged on the types of graphics cards available, you state two wrong claims:
1) "That can also be said for Dell, or pretty much any other "out of the box" computer supplier."
2) "You are wrong. The Mac Pro allows you to install up to 4 graphics cards, in any configuration you like."

To the first, I already corrected you in that Apple does not offer professional-grade video cards, even in their Mac Pro. The GeForce video card is not a professional-grade card; the Quadro is. To the second, you are wrong: OS X does not support SLI. Windows has supported multiple video cards since the PCI bus, MacOS has supported multiple cards since OS X-- neither of those things are equal to SLI.

When dtugg was going on about specs compared to the Mac Pro, you state "Hate to break it to you, but the Mac Pro uses the 5500 series of Xeon, not the 3500. Try again," and you were incorrect about the version of processor the model Mac Pro dtugg was talking about (the single proc model). Later you refer to the multi-core processors as "virtualized," which is again incorrect (they are physical CPU cores, sharing a socket). Whether or not you actually understand the hardware isn't really my concern, but in your exuberance to argue your case of brand loyalty you're letting what should otherwise be plain facts get mixed up in emotional slipperiness.

And while, yes, I have plenty of criticisms for plenty of the anti-Mac arguments as well, I addressed both sides in detail in this post aready. The reality is that the only real comparison that can be made is personal choice, and that's fine.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Later you refer to the multi-core processors as "virtualized," which is again incorrect (they are physical CPU cores, sharing a socket).

I may be wrong, but I took her statement to be a reference to Hyper-Threading on Newhalem processors, the net result of which could be described as a sort of virtualization in which the OS sees twice as many cores as physically exist.

 

[tesscaline]

You made a claim about the gaming development industry, one that was completely backwards and false. The companies developing games aren't driven by the enthusiast market, plain and simple. The answer for why game developers don't develop for the Mac most of the time is simple mathematics: Macs make up somewhere between 5-7% of the consumer computer market (this may have changed, I'm basing this off old data); if the Mac market itself is similar to the larger computer market, then somewhere between 50-70% of them will even be interested in gaming, and a majority of those will buy only a few titles. So, essentially, unless they already have projects or relationships that involve Mac programmers, then 3.5-5% of the market isn't really significant enough of an incentive for them to develop. Nothing inherent about Macs or PCs in those numbers, just looking at where the revenue stream lies. Attributing any more than that is pure conjecture. No one has to "learn how to develop their games for a unix based OS," it's about the extra hurdle of writing specifically for the Macintosh. If a game developer made games for the Mac the way some of the Linux games out there worked, Mac users would be unsatisfied that it isn't as simple as dropping a folder into the Apps directory (Mac 'apps' are folders with the binaries and libraries together in an executable package).

Um. Again. I covered all that (albeit more briefly). I didn't claim the enthusiast market drove the entire market. I said that in addition to the pre-existing market conditions, the high end gaming systems are part of the equation.

And yes, your market share data is old. Quite.

When challenged on the types of graphics cards available, you state two wrong claims:
1) "That can also be said for Dell, or pretty much any other "out of the box" computer supplier."

Yes, other out of the box suppliers do also carry and install less than stellar graphics cards. Some of them also carry higher grade ones, but they don't always come standard and you have to pay extra in a lot of cases.

2) "You are wrong. The Mac Pro allows you to install up to 4 graphics cards, in any configuration you like."

This statement was not about types of graphics cards, but instead it was about how MANY graphics cards one could install. The MP does indeed support up to 4 graphics cards (not 4 types, 4 physical cards), and you can configure how those cards are arranged in any way you like. Again. This statement does not speak to the selection of graphics cards supported by Mac, just to the number of slots and arrangement of said slots.

To the first, I already corrected you in that Apple does not offer professional-grade video cards, even in their Mac Pro. The GeForce video card is not a professional-grade card; the Quadro is. To the second, you are wrong: OS X does not support SLI. Windows has supported multiple video cards since the PCI bus, MacOS has supported multiple cards since OS X-- neither of those things are equal to SLI.

Irrelevant to my statements.

When dtugg was going on about specs compared to the Mac Pro, you state "Hate to break it to you, but the Mac Pro uses the 5500 series of Xeon, not the 3500. Try again," and you were incorrect about the version of processor the model Mac Pro dtugg was talking about (the single proc model).

A mistake that I admitted, if you'll care to notice. Pardon me for a momentary confusion between the two different processor sets used in the two different grades of MP. Because the more expensive MP does indeed use 5500 series. Dtugg seemed to forgive the mistake okay, and it's him I was talking to.

Later you refer to the multi-core processors as "virtualized," which is again incorrect (they are physical CPU cores, sharing a socket). Whether or not you actually understand the hardware isn't really my concern, but in your exuberance to argue your case of brand loyalty you're letting what should otherwise be plain facts get mixed up in emotional slipperiness.

No, it's not incorrect. With a dual Xeon Nehalem quad core, you get 8 physical cores, which support virtualization that allows the OS to see those 8 cores as if they were 16. Go read the white paper if you don't believe me.

And while, yes, I have plenty of criticisms for plenty of the anti-Mac arguments as well, I addressed both sides in detail in this post aready. The reality is that the only real comparison that can be made is personal choice, and that's fine.

Dude. I've already agreed that it's a personal choice, that its entirely based on one's personal preferences. So what, ffs, is your point?

 

[GreNME]

I may be wrong, but I took her statement to be a reference to Hyper-Threading on Newhalem processors, the net result of which could be described as a sort of virtualization in which the OS sees twice as many cores as physically exist.

Interesing. If that was indeed the meaning, then that's close enough. Regardless, my point about the emotionally-charged exaggerating still stands, unless they also are misinterpretable (which I doubt... OS X really doesn't do SLI).

 

[dtugg]

That can also be said for Dell, or pretty much any other "out of the box" computer supplier.

Actually, Dell offers much better graphics cards. Especially if you are spending the kind of money you would on a Mac.

I would also argue that "crappy" is subjective. I've definitely seen graphics cards that are much less in terms of quality and performance than what Mac uses.

I've already shown that the graphics card in the Mac Pro retails for like $60. Only integrated graphics in a cheapo computer is going to perform much less than that.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Regardless, my point about the emotionally-charged exaggerating still stands, unless they also are misinterpretable (which I doubt... OS X really doesn't do SLI).

I can see how the words she used ("in any configuration you like") could be interpreted to include SLI, but that may not have been her intention. She may simply have been referring to the fact that you can order a Mac Pro with up four video cards in various combinations of make and model.

 

[uruk]

If you're a gamer, sure. But that has nothing to do with the actual Mac. That has to do with the software developers not attempting to put out a product for a smaller section of the market.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the lack of games had to do with the hardware. (actually the graphics card issue was a factor to some degree) The Mac's smaller market share has more to do with Steve Jobs's choices than the hardware.

You are wrong. The Mac Pro allows you to install up to 4 graphics cards, in any configuration you like.

I did a little bit of research and can only seem to find that the multiple video cards are to provide multiple monitor support. SLI and Crossfire are not about multiple monitor support. They combine the power of the multiple GPUs for processing graphics and physics simulation. Although CUDA may provide this for Mac, but CUDA is about using the GPU to aid the CPU.

If I am wrong about this please provide a link. I am really interested in learning.

See, here again. It's not that Mac does not support gaming. Mac DOES support gaming. But game manufacturers (and thus, the 3d graphics houses that support those game manufacturers) don't support Mac. This is a problem that revolves around market shares and economic concerns, and has nothing to do with Mac itself. Simply put, Mac doesn't make up a large enough part of the market for game developers to learn how to develop their games for a unix based OS. But Mac's market share is increasing. So maybe that will change in the future, who knows.

There is a push in the effects graphics industry to support Macs. The deciding factor was NVIDIA and ATI finally developing the high end cards for the Mac. Which was prompted by Apple moving to Intel.

That's pretty standard for the way the market is currently. A lot of the software that is developed for OSX is either sponsored by Apple itself, or comes out of the open-source community (and there are some darned good open-source programs out there too). The rest is ports from windows because enough people think they "need" those titles.

What is sad is that some software companies that started with Apple, such as Adobe, seem to get thrown under the bus by Apple on occasion. Adobe didn't take it too well when Apple started to give Final Cut away with OSX.

I will say that you CAN game quite well on a Mac if you run Parallels (or boot camp if you so choose). Personally, I'm not a "gamer" -- I play WoW, and that runs on Mac natively anyway. But as I mentioned, with Parallels you can run any OS you want on a Mac, while retaining your Mac OS. Including any incarnation of windows you might feel like. So you can game to your heart's content. It just takes an extra click.

You invariably take a performance hit with the OS virtualization. Not what you want when you are playing a "Crysis" level game.

I honestly believe that a big reason why PC is so popular for gaming (besides the economic concerns I've mentioned already) has to do with the mentality of the typical hardcore gamer, and less to do with the actual capabilities of a Mac (these things are workhorses, seriously, and kick out some serious power). It's that the gaming community is big into upgrading their computers every time a new video card is released. Always tweaking and poking and upgrading to try and get just one extra frame per second (not that it really makes a difference above a certain threshold... there's only so many FPS the human eye can see!). You can't do that on a Mac (well, you can on a MP, but most people don't want to pay the premium to be able to do that). But you can on a PC.

It's more than just FPS. It's all the visual bells and wistles such as texture resolution and normal mapping, volumetric lighting effects, particle simulation, fluid and physics simulation which improve the gaming experiance.

Although now that Apple finally allows thier users to open and customize thier box (to a limited degree), Mac users may now enjoy the trials and tribbulations of being a fiddler.

There will come a day when Mac gamers will be able to move the game video performance slider all the way to "maximum".

 

[dtugg]

Look. You don't want a Mac. You are not the intended target market of the Mac. To you, a blu-ray is important. To other people, not so much (we have our blu-ray in a PS3, and we don't even have any blu-ray disks to watch yet, and in this economy, probably won't be buying any any time soon either).

You're arguing over things that are very obviously personal preferences, and I really don't see the point.

Actually, I don't really care about a Blu-Ray in a computer, I already said that. What I really care about is choice and Apple certainly doesn't offer much of that. Whatever Steve Jobs says is best is what you get.

 

[GreNME]

And yes, your market share data is old. Quite.

Not that old.

No, it's not incorrect. With a dual Xeon Nehalem quad core, you get 8 physical cores, which support virtualization that allows the OS to see those 8 cores as if they were 16. Go read the white paper if you don't believe me.

Virtualization support (on the software level) does not equal the "virtual" (for lack of a better description) processing involved with hyperthreading. You really don't want to play the white paper pissing match with me on that mark.

For the rest of your dodging, the point is that you seem emotionally involved in the debate, and that's impairing your ability to look at the subject critically. The same applies with the "Apples are too expensive" stuff. It's a computer, not a way of life, not a commentary on personality, and criticisms against Apple and their products are not criticisms against Mac users.

 

[not daSkeptic]

What I really care about is choice and Apple certainly doesn't offer much of that. Whatever Steve Jobs says is best is what you get.

Would you make the same argument about Nintendo or Sony Computer Entertainment? Their systems offer little or nothing in the way of field upgradability.

 

[GreNME]

Would you make the same argument about Nintendo or Sony Computer Entertainment? Their systems offer little or nothing in the way of field upgradability.

This is a good point. Apple markets appliances. Some of those appliances are computers as well, but they're still appliances.

 

[dtugg]

Would you make the same argument about Nintendo or Sony Computer Entertainment? Their systems offer little or nothing in the way of field upgradability.

No. Those are (relatively) cheap machines that have clear, specific purposes.

 

[not daSkeptic]

No. Those are (relatively) cheap machines that have clear, specific purposes.

Apple doesn't have specific intentions for their products?

 

[dtugg]

Apple doesn't have specific intentions for their products?

As for as I know, no. Certainly not like a gaming console.

 

[tesscaline]

Virtualization support (on the software level) does not equal the "virtual" (for lack of a better description) processing involved with hyperthreading. You really don't want to play the white paper pissing match with me on that mark.

Nowhere was I discussing software virtualization support. Again, you're not actually reading what I said, and are instead fabricating what you seem to want me to be saying so that you can try to cut me down.

To put things simply: You have 8 physical cores. By use of the hyperthreading technology, you now have 16 virtual cores. I'm not inventing terminology here. Both Intel and Mac both use the words "virtual" and "virtualization" in regards to this technology, and it's results. If you'd like to go argue with Intel about whether or not their choice of wording about their own technology is applicable, go for it.

Now, I'm getting pretty sick of your personalizing the conversation, and attacking me instead of the actual argument, so I won't be responding to your posts further, but I will say the following:

I've said, numerous times now, that the choice between a mac and a pc, or mac and windows, or mac and linux, or mac and whatever the heck else you might be choosing between is a personal choice. I've said, numerous times now, that many of the things used to make that choice are subjective. I stand by those statements.

 

[uruk]

Yes. Few people have the need for 8 or 16(virtualized) cores. The market for the Mac Pro is those high end graphics houses, and that do happen to need that kind of power -- you know, the same people who'd need to have 4 graphics cards, and 4TB of hard drive space...

As I mentioned before, the highend graphics houses (are we talking about print or special effects houses?), not to mention CAD/CAM, use Window/linux PCs. Not Macs.

(I do think that the person you were talking to meant dual or quad core CPU, not dual or quad CPU)

No I meant two to four dual/quad core CPUs on a single mother board.

I'm talking about one of these babies:
http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon7000/E8501/X6QT8.cfm

 

[GreNME]

Nowhere was I discussing software virtualization support. Again, you're not actually reading what I said, and are instead fabricating what you seem to want me to be saying so that you can try to cut me down.

You're the one who keeps bringing up things like virtualization support. You don't need my help for fabrication.

If you agree with what I'm saying so much, why are you still engaging in the red herring pedantry?

 

[not daSkeptic]

This is a good point. Apple markets appliances. Some of those appliances are computers as well, but they're still appliances.

This is in fact the point I've been trying to get across. Apple doesn't afford their customers the same configurability as other computer makers because, quite simply, that isn't their business. They are not trying to make the same kind of product. Like Nintendo, SCE, or SGI, they manufacture fixed or limited-configuration systems intended for certain uses and classes of consumers.

I've known many who made the same arguments as dtugg. Ultimately, their upset is the result of not being a part of Apple's target market.

 

[GreNME]

This is in fact the point I've been trying to get across. Apple doesn't afford their customers the same configurability as other computer makers because, quite simply, that isn't their business. They are not trying to make the same kind of product. Like Nintendo, SCE, or SGI, they manufacture fixed or limited-configuration systems intended for certain uses and classes of consumers.

I've known many who made the same arguments as dtugg. Ultimately, their upset is the result of not being a part of Apple's target market.

I don't know about the motivations behind the criticisms, but I agree with the rest. There is indeed frustration that Apple's computers don't fit into the slightly anarchic environment of other personal computers, and that often drives the arguments.

(sorry for quoting in full right after you, the thread is moving fast)

 

[Yoink]

Taking one single sentence, completely out of context, ignoring it's original context, and then trying to say it means something completely other than what the author intended is exactly what cherry picking is.

I placed it in several paragraphs of context when I first quoted it (see #110). You lied about what you were saying, so I quoted one line which definitely showed that you were lying. In context or out of context it means what it means. You were attacking PCs in general as unwieldy and unreliable. I have no idea why you are lying about this as your multiple posts in which you make this point very, very clearly are all right there in the thread for anyone to see.

Here's another example of you making a global distinction between Macs and Non-Macs to Macs advantage. Again, you're not saying here "well, it's all ineffable preferences" you're saying that Macs simply work better than non-Macs:

If you want to screw around with your computer and risk botching it up so badly that you fry the motherboard, don't get a Mac. If you want a computer that you don't have to futz with every five seconds to get it to operate properly, and just want something that will do what it says it will do when it says it will do it, then Mac is probably more your style.