 |
| |
|
|
Provost Harrison
|
 |
The farce is strong with this one.
Feb 2000
time: 05:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by d_dudy
the only troll is you insulting mac users! i like mac because the os is way better and because i'm not a conformist, not that all pc users are. i just had a choice and i chose this, i didn't just want a computer, i wanted the computer that was right for me |
Conformist? It's a bleeding computer for gods sake! I want something that is functional, I can get hold of software with ease, and quite importantly for me, I can play around with, upgrade, take apart, fix, repair, etc. I want functionality, not a fashion statement. If the PC isn't quite all the rage in Paris or Milan, then I'm bleeding sorry, but usefulness and a decent price for what I get takes priority over the 'it is a Mac novelty' which I don't understand anyway. Although a universal format brings it's problems (Wintel for example), the plus sides outweigh this.
quote:
and i didn't say anything about photoshop, no one did. quit *****ing about it already |
OK, but if people are so keen on running Photoshop at lightning speed, why not just save up and get yourself a silicon graphics workstation or something 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:15
|
|
Asher, Ming, PH, et al.:
Just as the ad designers in Ming's workplace swear by the Macintosh, so do I. I've had my machine since May 1999 and, before that, a Performa which I purchased in November 1996. (The mid-1990s being Apple's darkest time, from what I remember.)
I have yet to have to repair my computer. I have yet to have a virus target it simply because I'm using Windows OS (admittedly, part of that involves the intelligence not to just open every attachment one receives or downloads from suspect sites) or because Windows got corrupted by something. I laugh at those folks who proudly claim their PCs run for days, maybe even weeks, before they have to tweak something with Windows in order to return their PC to "optimal" performance. Why do I laugh? Because I've run my Apple Macintosh computers for *years* w/o having to reinstall the OS or some other godforsaken program that wasn't 110 percent Windows compatible (in my case, Apple OS compatible).
Beyond that, though, maybe it all comes down to what one does with their computer. I could probably be described as the quintessential consumer (albeit one w/some knowledge of a 'puter's innards). I purchased my iMac 333mhz because it fit what I wanted to do: surf the Internet. It was also fast enough to handle my other needs, such as writing/design and playing Civ II, which is the only game I play on the Mac (my PlayStation is the main gaming machine, mostly for RPGs like ChronoTrigger and ChronoCross).
Obviously others bought their PCs because they like to rummage around inside it or constantly upgrade (keeping up w/the Jones family, so to speak). Apparently those who buy PCs for games must always be on the cutting edge of speed and power because the game designers are always on the edge.
Suffice to say, folks buy what suits them.
CYBERAmazon
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CYBERAmazon
I have yet to have to repair my computer. I have yet to have a virus target it simply because I'm using Windows OS (admittedly, part of that involves the intelligence not to just open every attachment one receives or downloads from suspect sites) or because Windows got corrupted by something. I laugh at those folks who proudly claim their PCs run for days, maybe even weeks, before they have to tweak something with Windows in order to return their PC to "optimal" performance. Why do I laugh? Because I've run my Apple Macintosh computers for *years* w/o having to reinstall the OS or some other godforsaken program that wasn't 110 percent Windows compatible (in my case, Apple OS compatible). |
I laugh at those people, too.
Do you know why? Because they have no frickin' clue what they're doing.
I install an OS and it stays running. I don't reformat it monthly, I don't reinstall it.
Especially with 2K/XP.
As for virii: That has nothing to do with the platform as it does the popularity of the platform. If more people bought macs, you'd be seeing the same thing.
Luckily for us we have things called "anti-virus programs".
quote:
Beyond that, though, maybe it all comes down to what one does with their computer. I could probably be described as the quintessential consumer (albeit one w/some knowledge of a 'puter's innards). I purchased my iMac 333mhz because it fit what I wanted to do: surf the Internet. It was also fast enough to handle my other needs, such as writing/design and playing Civ II, which is the only game I play on the Mac (my PlayStation is the main gaming machine, mostly for RPGs like ChronoTrigger and ChronoCross). |
News flash: You could have bought a faster PC for half the price to surf the internet on, plus play Civ2 and write/design. Could have used the money you saved to buy a PlayStation 2.
quote:
Obviously others bought their PCs because they like to rummage around inside it or constantly upgrade (keeping up w/the Jones family, so to speak). Apparently those who buy PCs for games must always be on the cutting edge of speed and power because the game designers are always on the edge. |
So you prefer not being able to upgrade? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bradman
|
|
Westlake Interactive, Civ3 Mac Programmer
|
|
Chandler, AZ, USA
Mar 2000
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
On the reverse, there are a ton more bugs in Diablo II mac than the PC. My friend has one. |
Ah, the old "my friend said..." - there's hard data.  My D2 seems more stable on the Mac than the PC - both using the GeForce 2MX. Clearly there's room on both sides of the fence.
But back to the topic at hand. 
Here are the bugfixes in Mac SMAC above and beyond the 5.0 (SMACX 2.0-equivalent) patch, in reverse order from when I added them. Judge the usefulness for yourself.
• You can now choose which monitor you'd like to play on via the Options dialog. Note that this only applies when you are running the game fullscreen and not in a window.
• Added ability to prevent the "ESC" key from attempting to quit SMAC. To configure this, hold down the 'option' or 'command' key immediately after starting SMAC and check the appropriate box.
- If you attempted to turn a "native" unit over to the wild (e.g. an Isle of the Deep) and it had units aboard, those units would erroneously be turned wild as well. You must now move those units off the native unit before releasing it to the wild.
• Incorporates all of the gameplay fixes that are in Alien Crossfire 2.0.
- Urgent Messages no longer repeatedly pop-up.
- (SMAX only) Energy grid calculations for the alien factions now work properly.
- The Secret Project report window no longer displays random info for projects belonging to bases which have been destroyed.
- Infiltrating a base via "Total Thought Control" will now turn off any designated defenders for that base since they are under new management.
- Starting multiple games in the same session now restores the console to its proper initial state.
- If a faction is eliminated but escapes to continue play, you now remember its commlink frequency.
- It was possible for some units to spontaneously morph into others or be spontaneously reassigned to different bases. This has been fixed.
- The "Select Research Goal" dialog could print out text using the wrong fonts/styles in certain cases. This is now fixed.
- If a pact-brother unit is the top unit in one of your bases, the game will now draw all the units properly in the map window.
- New feature: the base window now displays the support costs, and displays an adjusted energy output based on that.
- Fixed issue where Alien Crossfire could crash when loading certain types of SMAC save-games.
• SMAC keeps track of the total time you've spent playing. The number of hours and minutes is listed in the About box found in the Apple menu (as opposed to the in-game About box).
• If you load a demo game that ended due to the demo time limit at year 2200, SMAC will now allow you to continue playing that game as if it never ended.
- The movement AI could send the game into an infinite loop giving the appearance that SMAC had crashed.
- The base production window had some text alignment glitches in 800x600.
- Tech tree buttons in the datalinks did not work if you were viewing "all categories."
- Net games didn't honor the "look first" setting when configuring the game rules.
Brad
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
 |
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:15
|
|
asher, you presented your case, here's mine
windows isn't the perfect os. I see you defending it relentlessly all the time in the OT against dozens of complaints. everything works fine for you - probably because you spend a load more time working with computers than anyone else on that forum.
but there are others - the people who aren't into things like that as much as you are. having your computer screen turn blue constantly is annoying, and having to worry about all the garbage products out there (I saw you laughing at DocfeelGood for buying a compaq, one of the computer market leaders...how should he know the package he got would be less than advertised?).
macs don't have as much software, but if you just want a good, stable computer that can run a good amount of major releases and a few more or less optimized games, why not? the price isn't gross, save for some G4 tower models (don't tell me Dell doesn't do that with their 2GHz P4s)...a great computer, in mac terms, would be about $1400 - not cheap, but not something to whine about.
of course, many people like PCs, and I can understand that. most programs stem from that OS, and they are generally very affordable. still, MS is a tough company to trust and their products are not nearly as simple to understand.
a word on imacs...I've got one, it's a good computer. three years old now, and it can still run most software (OSX, Word, etc) and only crashes twice or so times every month now that I've cleared it out a bit. costly? maybe, but there was very little frustration compared to windows98 or XP (although I haven't personally used the latter enough to be the final word on that)
newsflash: not everyone demands to have cutting edge games and software on their computer. PCs are better for that. some of us want simplicity and a computer that will work and run the basics and more advanced software like Photoshop. while apple has a good amount of gimmicks of their own, their product is superior until you can prove otherwise. saying we're idiots or children doesn't do that.
both are good. PCs are awesome and so are macs. so don't spout out that kiddie table troll again, it's annoying.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
d_dudy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by d_dudy
the only troll is you insulting mac users! i like mac because the os is way better and because i'm not a conformist, not that all pc users are. i just had a choice and i chose this, i didn't just want a computer, i wanted the computer that was right for me |
quote:
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Conformist? It's a bleeding computer for gods sake! I want something that is functional, I can get hold of software with ease, and quite importantly for me, I can play around with, upgrade, take apart, fix, repair, etc. I want functionality, not a fashion statement. If the PC isn't quite all the rage in Paris or Milan, then I'm bleeding sorry, but usefulness and a decent price for what I get takes priority over the 'it is a Mac novelty' which I don't understand anyway. Although a universal format brings it's problems (Wintel for example), the plus sides outweigh this.
|
i underlined it for you this time, because you clearly missed it the first time. i put that in there just for people who by windows just because they want a computer for having a computer. i knew what i wanted when i bought this and that's why i bought it
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
windows isn't the perfect os. I see you defending it relentlessly all the time in the OT against dozens of complaints. everything works fine for you - probably because you spend a load more time working with computers than anyone else on that forum. |
I know people with Macs (OS 9 in specific) that have tons of problems. There's two sides to this fence (blahblah, whatever the guy said earlier).
quote:
but there are others - the people who aren't into things like that as much as you are. having your computer screen turn blue constantly is annoying, and having to worry about all the garbage products out there (I saw you laughing at DocfeelGood for buying a compaq, one of the computer market leaders...how should he know the package he got would be less than advertised?). |
Compaqs use cheap parts, as evidenced by their uber-cheap prices. They use some proprietary hardware that forces you go upgrade with **** parts for more money than you would normally, their tech support is possibly the worst, and they skip around sending actual OS CDs with your PC. They're absoltely awful.
As for the BSODs: In 2K (And XP specifically) those are a very rare occurance. OS X crashes more in my personal experience, and it's based on BSD.
Mac OS 9 and below didn't have protected memory either, so they had the same problem, just not with a blue screen.
quote:
macs don't have as much software, but if you just want a good, stable computer that can run a good amount of major releases and a few more or less optimized games, why not? |
Because it's several times the price of something that can do more?
quote:
the price isn't gross, save for some G4 tower models (don't tell me Dell doesn't do that with their 2GHz P4s)...a great computer, in mac terms, would be about $1400 - not cheap, but not something to whine about. |
What computer would that be?
Christ, a $1400 mac would probably be a 333MHz G3. Which is about the same as a 333MHz Pentium II. You can get a 333MHz P2 for far less than $1400.
quote:
of course, many people like PCs, and I can understand that. most programs stem from that OS, and they are generally very affordable. still, MS is a tough company to trust and their products are not nearly as simple to understand. |
You'd rather trust Steve Jobs? Someone who has more control over everything on your computer? Someone who is more concerned over the color of the next iMac over cache sizes on your chip? Haha...
Windows XP is very, very easy to understand. You can also turn off the "friendly" features and have a very advanced OS.
Something which, until OS X, was impossible to do on the Mac.
And the only reason OS X has advanced features is that it's ripped out of BSD, the Apple Engineers couldn't do it themselves.
quote:
a word on imacs...I've got one, it's a good computer. three years old now, and it can still run most software (OSX, Word, etc) and only crashes twice or so times every month now that I've cleared it out a bit. costly? maybe, but there was very little frustration compared to windows98 or XP (although I haven't personally used the latter enough to be the final word on that) |
Oh, the frustration with Windows 98 and XP. What a great ignorant comment.
Frustrating is having to ship 2 OSes when you buy OS X (OS 9 and OS X) because Apple is too stupid to figure out decent emulation.
By "frustration" in 98, I assume you mean the BSODs everyone complains about. Those aren't as common as the Mac user might think, especially considering that 90% of BSODs come from bad drivers or obsolete drivers. And the reason they're bad or obsolete is usually because the person bought cheap hardware (Compaq, again) or doesn't upgrade their drivers.
XP makes BSOD pretty much obsolete compared to 98. Drivers are updated automatically with Windows Update, and it's got protected memory and all of that. I've only had one BSOD w/ Windows XP, and that was with "Whistler Beta 1" about 6 months ago, and due to using a non-WHQL driver for my brand new video card.
quote:
newsflash: not everyone demands to have cutting edge games and software on their computer. |
I don't understand!
Why do you pay more for less?!
Who CARES if you don't demand the more software selection, SAVE THE MONEY. The more software is a handy bonus!
quote:
PCs are better for that. some of us want simplicity and a computer that will work and run the basics and more advanced software like Photoshop. |
PCs can be just as simple as Macs if you want them to be. Nobody makes you use the advanced features, but they're there if you want to. For cheaper.
quote:
while apple has a good amount of gimmicks of their own, their product is superior until you can prove otherwise. saying we're idiots or children doesn't do that. |
You've been on a Mac too long, my friend.
quote:
both are good. PCs are awesome and so are macs. so don't spout out that kiddie table troll again, it's annoying. |
Macs are NOT AWESOME in ANY WAY.
Their proprietary about EVERYTHING which skyrockets the price, they use obsolete hardware and charge a fortune for it, their OS is a kludged version of a dinosaur OS with a disfunctional annoying GUI, and there's limited software support.
The only reason you still use it is because you're used to it.
If you seriously think something like Windows XP is too hard, then you shouldn't be using a computer at all. It's just as easy as the Mac, but can do so much more for less.
My last post in this thread because it's circular.
You guys are brainwashed beyond belief, and you're welcome to keep pouring your money into Apple so you can run Claris Works and Photoshop.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
|
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:15
|
|
quote:
What computer would that be?
Christ, a $1400 mac would probably be a 333MHz G3. Which is about the same as a 333MHz Pentium II. You can get a 333MHz P2 for far less than $1400. |
for accuracy, $1400 would be a 700MHz iMac, 256 RAM, 60 gig HD, and a Rage Pro graphics card. and since all parts seem to be higher in quality than their PC rivals (you've said gateway, HP, and compaq are poor choices for a windows machine..what's left but dell? and is it good to have only one company that can produce a good PC?), it isn't that bad a deal as I don't believe the clock speeds are directly comparable anyway.
macs do get a large userbase from the fan sector, I'm not disputing that.
also, I'm not brainwashed, I'm actually very open to PCs. but you have an obvious bias so it's hard to take you seriously. I'm used to a mac, sure, but the simplicity is great (or used to be..over the last few years I've got more used to windows and don't weigh a purchase based on user interface anymore) and until now I really didn't need a computer that could handle everything. I needed stability and features, and I got it.
when you come out full force like that, it's hard to convince me you're right. although it might be true apple is more concerned about the case on their computers than anything else, your post was like talking to some MS rep..not very open minded or fair.
don't trash macs so quickly. when I need more programs and universal support, I might get a PC. right now that's not what I need - I just want stability, and OSX and 9 provides that, among other important everyday things.
again, both are awesome depending on your needs. Right now my needs are changing, and I'm looking into the PC market (very expensive to get a good computer from dell). calm down. there isn't some blind war of the platforms, and if there is it's immature.
Until you can prove otherwise, macs are more powerful but can run less, but optimized software. That's accurate, I would think, and clearly and fairly displays the strengths and flaws of the two.
quote:
their OS is a kludged version of a dinosaur OS with a disfunctional annoying GUI |
just to clarify, it's things like that that make you look bad. windows was hardly the best in the business.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bradman
|
|
Westlake Interactive, Civ3 Mac Programmer
|
|
Chandler, AZ, USA
Mar 2000
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher As for the BSODs: In 2K (And XP specifically) those are a very rare occurance. OS X crashes more in my personal experience, and it's based on BSD. |
Fascinating. You have personal experience with OSX? Do tell us, and please share the sins of BSD while you're at it. Does the BSD kernel offend you as well?
Brad
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
It's definitely hard to take your word on anything with the poor research youv'e shown already, e.g. $1400 333MHz Macs and the OSX "ripped out of BSD" comment. I'm certain you don't know what MacOS X is vs. BSD based on that alone. If you do, please share with the class. |
I never said OSX was ripped out of BSD. Don't put words into my mouth.
OS X uses the Mach microkernel with a flashy (albeit annoying) new interface called Aqua.
I've done a report on OS X, with fairly technical writeups about Cocoa, Carbon, the kernel, Aqua, etc. Go ahead, quiz me.
And I'll have you know BSD is my favorite of the Unixes.
It's just too bad they selected such a poor kernel, compared to the other choices out there.
quote:
Originally posted by bradman
One fact I do know - and which is relevant to this forum - is that not only is the Mac gaming experience with SMAC (and soon, Civ3) different from the PC, it is significantly better. |
Well, I was honestly never too fond of SMAC to begin with, nor do I care that for some odd reason the Macs have a more up to date version. And the fact that this DOES happen is more certainly not a statement about the platform, but rather that the Mac port takes additional time and in that time might have some new features.
Sorry, Macs rarely get games out near the time the PC does, and when they do, they're woefully out of date in most cases. And they run quite a bit slower.
quote:
While it's true that you can buy a cheap PC and a knock-off OS for less than an equivalent Mac setup, you're also paying for it in other ways. In economic terms, it's referred to as "opportunity cost." |
"knock-off OS"? What kind of research have you been doing? 
What opportunity costs are associated with the PC?
It's easier (and cheaper) to buy hardware for it, it's easier to buy software for it, and you don't have to waste time booting into OS9 to run half of your applications (time is an opportunity cost, you know). I don't see how that has any relevance to this debate, though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bradman
|
|
Westlake Interactive, Civ3 Mac Programmer
|
|
Chandler, AZ, USA
Mar 2000
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
I never said OSX was ripped out of BSD. Don't put words into my mouth. |
OK, first question. Who wrote the following quote just above in this thread: "And the only reason OS X has advanced features is that it's ripped out of BSD"?
Your only hint - the poster's nickname has "her" in it.
Here's a follow-up question. The same person wrote the following quote: "OS X crashes more in my personal experience, and it's based on BSD."
Based on the context of that sentence, the trailing clause about BSD would lead any sane person to deduce that the speaker finds BSD less than satisfactory. Or the other alternative - the speaker likes to tack on unrelated clauses to confuse people and really finds BSD the most pleasant of the Unixes. Which is it?
I'm very pleased to see you come back to this discussion (or argument, if you prefer). It shows that you treat your word with as much respect as we do.
quote:
And the fact that this DOES happen is more certainly not a statement about the platform, but rather that the Mac port takes additional time and in that time might have some new features. |
How do you figure? Are we only allowed to patch games before their release? In the case of SMAC, the "5.0+" patch came out 6 months after the Mac version hit the shelves. Those fixes above and beyond 4.0 weren't done in the time allotted for the original port.
quote:
"knock-off OS"? What kind of research have you been doing?What opportunity costs are associated with the PC?
It's easier (and cheaper) to buy hardware for it, it's easier to buy software for it, and you don't have to waste time booting into OS9 to run half of your applications (time is an opportunity cost, you know). I don't see how that has any relevance to this debate, though. |
My quote about knock-offs was mainly directed at the new "Luna" interface of XP. It bears a striking resemblance to another interface I've seen recently. Regarding booting in to OS9, I'm sure you already know this owing to your research of OSX, but you need only start the classic box once inside 10. What I typically do is have it start up when I log in, and I usually surf the net in IE or do any of a dozen other things (like launch CodeWarrior and get to work) while classic starts up. There is no time lost in the process, at least on my behalf. Perhaps if you are a very linear, do-things-in-a-straight-line type, you might just sit there and wait for classic to start up before doing anything else.
As for opportunity cost, the PC is blessed/saddled (take your pick) with a much wider variety and combination of hardware, which while good in one respect, increases the support costs many times over the much smaller number of configurations you find on the Mac platform.
However, I wasn't referring to hardware in my statement, I was referring to software - specifically SMAC and Civ3. While it seems likely that PC users will get Civ3 a few months before Mac users, I am equally as certain it will have fewer features and more bugs than the Mac version, as was the case with Alpha Centauri. That is the opportunity cost I was referring to, and one which is actually relevant to this forum.
Brad
|
|
| |
|
|
|
d_dudy
|
|
to all: see my above post about bradman making betyer points than asher
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bradman
OK, first question. Who wrote the following quote just above in this thread: "And the only reason OS X has advanced features is that it's ripped out of BSD"? |
I said the advanced features are ripped out. IE: preemptive multitasking, protected memory.
quote:
Based on the context of that sentence, the trailing clause about BSD would lead any sane person to deduce that the speaker finds BSD less than satisfactory. Or the other alternative - the speaker likes to tack on unrelated clauses to confuse people and really finds BSD the most pleasant of the Unixes. Which is it? |
"And it's based on BSD", as in, it should be far more stable than that.
Apple took the Mach microkernel and made it significantly less stable.
quote:
How do you figure? Are we only allowed to patch games before their release? In the case of SMAC, the "5.0+" patch came out 6 months after the Mac version hit the shelves. Those fixes above and beyond 4.0 weren't done in the time allotted for the original port. |
I believe my comment was I don't care about isolated incidents regarding a specific software title, considering some of the best games don't even RUN on the Mac platform.
quote:
My quote about knock-offs was mainly directed at the new "Luna" interface of XP. It bears a striking resemblance to another interface I've seen recently. |
You're right, it looks like Windows always has, except with more color. 
quote:
Regarding booting in to OS9, I'm sure you already know this owing to your research of OSX, but you need only start the classic box once inside 10. What I typically do is have it start up when I log in, and I usually surf the net in IE or do any of a dozen other things (like launch CodeWarrior and get to work) while classic starts up. There is no time lost in the process, at least on my behalf. Perhaps if you are a very linear, do-things-in-a-straight-line type, you might just sit there and wait for classic to start up before doing anything else. |
Don't you care about resource usage at all?
I mean, you've got some pretty weak hardware under the hood for most things, spare what you can.
quote:
As for opportunity cost, the PC is blessed/saddled (take your pick) with a much wider variety and combination of hardware, which while good in one respect, increases the support costs many times over the much smaller number of configurations you find on the Mac platform. |
So how come you still pay more for the Mac?
You're saying basically "more choice means more support costs which is evil".
If you think that is evil, I'm glad you're not on a PC.
We don't live under a communist rule where Steve Jobs tells us what hardware to use and when. No sir.
quote:
However, I wasn't referring to hardware in my statement, I was referring to software - specifically SMAC and Civ3. While it seems likely that PC users will get Civ3 a few months before Mac users, I am equally as certain it will have fewer features and more bugs than the Mac version, as was the case with Alpha Centauri. That is the opportunity cost I was referring to, and one which is actually relevant to this forum. |
Pray tell, what will the Mac version have that the PC won't?
quote:
I'd like to see you play escape velocity, escape velocity override, or escape velocity nova on a pc. |
I have played them before. Good games, but they got old pretty fast.
It says something when you rationalize a purchase of an overpriced obsolete system for a sharewaretitle.
quote:
And historically, mac games have always looked better then on pcs. All the way from civ 1 to Fly 2. |
ROFL.
Yeah, okay, let's follow the logic here:
Macs are better because you get games later, and because of this have some different graphics.
Tell me, how does Half-Life look on the Mac (only one of the best games ever...)
Oh, that's right, they scrapped it for the Mac, didn't they?
Weak, weak arguments.
If you had the game selection AND the "improved graphics" WHILE coming out at the EXACT SAME TIME, you would have a point.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-10-2001 15:36
) and the support is terrible.
|