why would you want to buy a device thats proprietary, and costs more than something that can do the same stuff and is WAY cheaper, and there is way more options for?theshadowhunter
For many Mac users, I think yoiu just answered your own question when regarding "more (or less) options." Yes, there are many Mac users that are hardcore into their hardware (and software), but the majority of Mac users I know like Macs because they don't have to worry about fiddling with options and tweaks. It's factory set and nearly everything is locked in, which means that they don't have to add other software which might break their user experience or try to interpret various user settings that they may not understand.
Everyone I talk to that says they want a computer to browse the web, write email, have a word processor and other mundane things, I always tell them to get a Mac. If they are a power user, or a mid-level user and have 1/2 a clue as to what they're doing with their PC, then I advise Vista or XP. The vast majority of PC users don't know what the hell they're doing, which is highly evident by the large number of tech-repair services and the large number of support calls they must make. Work for a week for Geek Squad or similar and you will see the nightmareish PC users I'm talking about.
[QUOTE="codezer0"][QUOTE="TrooperManaic"]I heard gameing on macs are bad.. though they can shine at times but its so much better with a pc.imprezawrx500
Have you actually tried it yourself? Or are you just spouting random stuff that may ultimately be deemed FUD? I myself got to see what gaming on a Mac is about, with a dev that actually gave a damn about doing it right. And this was back when the PowerPC G5 CPU's were brand new. In short The system: - PowerMac G5 dual 1.8GHz CPU's - 1 (or 2?) GB of RAM - 6800GT - 30" Apple display The game: UT 2004. Keep in mind, the game could only output at a max of 1920x1200. But with that said, I had every in game setting as high as it would allow, and the thing still ran at a constant 70fps, even with about 16 bots running around. And this was back when even an overclocked AMD64 with a 6800 Ultra SLI was struggling with the same on 1600x1200. :shock: It's almost a shame that Apple had to go with intel. The PPC architecture was indeed faster, but it was reaching ridiculous levels of heat, and IBM had no way of refining it enough, fast enough to put the chip inside their notebooks like Apple wanted; while intel did.now swap unreal 2004 with crysis, unreal 3, cod4, world in conflict and see what you say
Um. You do know that is impossible to do, right? Crysis is not made to run natively on a Mac. CoD4 is being released in May. Unreal 3 will be released sometime in 2008. Until these games run natively on the Mac OS, there is no point in comparing the two. As is, you are esentially comparing a computer running Vista or XP to another doing the exact same. The only real difference between mosts PCs and a Mac is the OS, which does tend to run games much better as the OS has a much lighter footprint freeing up more resources. What is indside the PC and the Mac is nearly identical.
Log in to comment