24-10-2001 06:36									#61
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

"I have played them before. Good games, but they got old pretty fast. "

Aha! You obviously didn't reach the depths, the 'nirvana' of escape velocity! I have literally had friends who wanted to convert after playing it after a few hours straight. . . But regardless.

"And you, d_dudy, are the reason why most people can't stand Mac users. "

Yeah, and Bill Gates is the reason why I hate all rich people. . . Nice generalization. Most people seem to stand me pretty well.

I, for one, have a clue as to how computers work. I've used dos ever since I was a wee lad, windows, experienced linux, but I keep falling back to mac. Why do I choose mac over windows? Oses are like pants, different people have different comforts. Macs are like jeans, while pcs are like overalls. The tan courdoury kind. That you find in the thrift shop.

As far as mac power is concerned, we don't seem to have any trouble playing quake 3, or unreal tournament at awesome framerates with great graphics. I will remind you that Quake 3 was a simultaneous release. . . (And I suspect UT was too).

Played through half life. Twice. It's no big loss.

	24-10-2001 06:51									#62
	Increase the size of your Attachments

The best part of Half-Life was multiplayer and its mods (CS, TFC, etc.).

Single player wasn't too thrilling.

And I'm sure Escape Velocity is a very deep game.
In fact I'll go spend $3500 on a brand new PowerMac so I can go play shareware games.

	24-10-2001 06:56									#63
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Actually, if you really want to play the great mac shareware games, I can probably hook you up with a cheap used computer. E-mail me with how much you're willing to spend. . .

You can only play so much counter-strike. I liked single player better then multi-player in half life.

And unreal tournament is much better then half life in terms of multiplayer. MUCH better.

	24-10-2001 07:02									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Check out the www.gamespy.com numbers.

Obviously the vast majority of people disagree.

quote: Half Life 44465 Unreal Tournament 4439 Quake 3: Arena 4264 Tribes 2 3260 Wolfenstein MP Test 3156

	24-10-2001 07:09									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Obviously there is a much greater pool of computers that can play half life then can play unreal tournament.

I stand by my statement that ut has better multiplayer then half life.

What do those numbers mean? People currently playing half life? Voting on what the best game is? Where were these people polled from?

Frankly, there is so much mystique surronding 'the glory of half life' that it is hard to remember that underneath it it is code, just like any other game. People seem to treat it like the Jesus of games.

Frankly, I'd rather be playing avernum. www.spidweb.com

Last post for the night, I've got to work on my essay!

	24-10-2001 07:16									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Those numbers are players currently playing those games, yes.

And it's not that people can't play UT (although they do have a wonderfully silly engine), it's that HL's is better.
I know far more people who play HL multiplayer than UT's, and most of them have >800MHz systems.

	24-10-2001 07:20									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Asher And you, d_dudy, are the reason why most people can't stand Mac users. You don't have any clue what you're talking about so you fall behind marketing rhetoric or make stupid remarks like the above which in no way relate to the debate.

I AM THE MAC TROLL!!!!!




*is cumfy in his pants-his designer pants *

	24-10-2001 07:49									#68
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

ash -

PCs are generally made of cheap parts. my friend has a gateway that crashes four times a day on ME and 3 a day on 98 and has constant errors for reasons even tech support cannot figure out. move over to apple, and the OS and hardware are both nearly spotless in terms of reboots (modern versions anyway) - there's your stability.

so, whats that good for? essays, internet browsing, mild game playing, art programs, you name it. actually, for around $1400 you get one of the coolest, most stable computers available that does all you need it to do.

not such a bad choice after all. those $900 PCs are cheap and probably won't last the two year warranty (yes, there's some experiance backing that up). the more expensive PCs overshoot the good apples in terms of price by quite a bit.

	24-10-2001 07:59									#69
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf PCs are generally made of cheap parts. my friend has a gateway that crashes four times a day on ME and 3 a day on 98 and has constant errors for reasons even tech support cannot figure out. move over to apple, and the OS and hardware are both nearly spotless in terms of reboots (modern versions anyway) - there's your stability.

Yeah, that's fair.
Compare old Windows to new BSD-based Mac. Hmm.
Compare Windows 2000 or XP to OS X and you'll find them very similar in stability.

quote: so, whats that good for? essays, internet browsing, mild game playing, art programs, you name it. actually, for around $1400 you get one of the coolest, most stable computers available that does all you need it to do.

You can get a $200 computer to do essays, internet browsing, and mild game playing.

You can do all of that and more on a PC, except you can also play a helluva lot more games with more speed and less money (in general).

quote: not such a bad choice after all. those $900 PCs are cheap and probably won't last the two year warranty (yes, there's some experiance backing that up). the more expensive PCs overshoot the good apples in terms of price by quite a bit.

Most computers don't die after 2 years (I've never had a PC die that was younger than 6 -- and that 6 was a Gateway )
If you know what you're doing when you buy a PC, you can get a fast, stable, cheap, and reliable machine for quite a bit less than you could get out of a Mac.
As a bonus, you can upgrade more things, save money in the longrun.

	24-10-2001 12:11									#70
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Asher I said the advanced features are ripped out. IE: preemptive multitasking, protected memory.[/QUOTE} Good, I was starting to think you were losing your mind when you denied that. [QUOTE]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.

You're obviously not too caring about the "specific" Civ-series of games then, but it's good to see you here anyway. Are you aware that this is a Civ3 forum?

quote: 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.

I assume you're referring to the CPU? The classic environment isn't a CPU hog. You can use "top" next time you find yourself forced to use OSX to see for yourself - it's listed as "TruBlueEnvironment". I know you're no doubt aware of how the blue box works, but I'll state the obvious in case anyone else reading is ignorant. The native MacOS 9 environment runs using a nanokernel dispatcher using preemptive tasks. The cooperative "classic" MacOS runs as a preemptive thread. What this means is that under 10, the OSX kernel can switch it out and keep it switched out with much less CPU overhead since every classic app is essentially a preemptive task anyway. That is, the 10 blue box takes over the role that the classic MacOS 9 preemptive nanokernel held. What's more, it can put the entire classic environment to a form of sleep when a classic app is not forefront, and offload it to a separate processor in a DP setup.

This reminds me of a new question though: do you have a game that brings your PC to its knees?

quote: You're saying basically "more choice means more support costs which is evil".

I don't recall using or even implying the word "evil". I was talking about opportunity cost - an intangible measure of what you give up when making a choice. With PCs, you get a myriad of hardware choices, additional support costs to go along and a supbar gaming experience in SMAC and Civ3. For some people, they'd rather play an inferior game of SMAC or Civ3 and enjoy that wide range of hardware. For others, they'd rather have something else. Not everyone would make the same choice as you as they might place more weight on SMAC than Half-Life. Shocking, I know.

quote: We don't live under a communist rule where Steve Jobs tells us what hardware to use and when.

Not to state the obvious, but the CEO of a given company controls what products that company releases. A consumer buys what hardware he feels meets his needs. If I want the hardware Jobs is offering, I buy it. If I want the hardware Michael Dell is offering, I buy that instead. You seem to think that Mac users choose the Mac because they're so completely ignorant of PCs that they don't know better. Some Mac users prefer to keep their distance from Microsoft, some prefer the style and design of the Mac, others prefer the way the Finder works vs. Explorer, etc. These are by no means invalid reasons, and can't be measured in dollar amounts.

Along similar lines, compare a Jaguar XK8 with a Ford Mustang. You can successfully argue that the Mustang is cheaper, has a wider variety of add-ons, a better service record in Consumer Reports, has a better-performing Cobra edition, and is more "standard" than the XK8 when it comes to mechanics. That doesn't mean that all Jag buyers are so completely ignorant of the Mustang that they'd buy one instead if they only knew.

quote: Pray tell, what will the Mac version have that the PC won't?

I suspect it'll be along the same lines as SMAC. I'll start with an obvious one - multiple monitor support. That's a cheap shot, I know - what good is that on the PC with the barely-functional GDI support and non-existent DirectX fullscreen support? With all those video cards to choose from, you'd think Win32 would be able to run a game on a secondary monitor much better than the Mac...

Brad

	24-10-2001 12:26									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Asher Compare Windows 2000 or XP to OS X and you'll find them very similar in stability.

Aaaah! You're confusing me. You said in an earlier post:

""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. "

Your posts continue to entertain and amuse.

Brad

	24-10-2001 12:53									#72
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by bradman You're obviously not too caring about the "specific" Civ-series of games then, but it's good to see you here anyway. Are you aware that this is a Civ3 forum?

I didn't come here like most people.
First of all, when I posted in this thread it was in the 'Apolyton' section, not Civ3.
Second of all, I got involved in this site because I was an administrator at another large site in a semi-related way.
Third of all, I got involved in the other site through a completely different non-Sid game.
I usually only post in the Off-Topic/Community forums.

quote: I assume you're referring to the CPU? The classic environment isn't a CPU hog.

So why does OS X (And X.1 in particular) see such a speed increase in comparison? Obviously the entire approach to OS 9 and below was so horribly off that even Apple decided to ditch it and try again, using someone else's kernel. A wise move.

quote: You can use "top" next time you find yourself forced to use OSX to see for yourself - it's listed as "TruBlueEnvironment". I know you're no doubt aware of how the blue box works, but I'll state the obvious in case anyone else reading is ignorant. The native MacOS 9 environment runs using a nanokernel dispatcher using preemptive tasks. The cooperative "classic" MacOS runs as a preemptive thread. What this means is that under 10, the OSX kernel can switch it out and keep it switched out with much less CPU overhead since every classic app is essentially a preemptive task anyway. That is, the 10 blue box takes over the role that the classic MacOS 9 preemptive nanokernel held. What's more, it can put the entire classic environment to a form of sleep when a classic app is not forefront, and offload it to a separate processor in a DP setup.

That's all well and good.
But when you run your older 'classic' programs, my understanding is they still do not use protective memory, rather they all use the same hunk of memory as the other OS9 programs, ala OS9?

quote: This reminds me of a new question though: do you have a game that brings your PC to its knees?

Anarchy Online and Max Payne (one very sweet game, btw -- Too bad it uses DirectX 8 ).
I then upgraded my GeForce 2 MX (which I got for free since I do hardware reviews online) a GeForce 3 and run in the high frame rates once again.
I plan to replace my motherboard, CPU, and RAM with Northwood Pentium 4s (with 533MHz FSB, PC1066 RDRAM) when they become available in the second half of next year.

quote: I don't recall using or even implying the word "evil". I was talking about opportunity cost - an intangible measure of what you give up when making a choice. With PCs, you get a myriad of hardware choices, additional support costs to go along and a supbar gaming experience in SMAC and Civ3. For some people, they'd rather play an inferior game of SMAC or Civ3 and enjoy that wide range of hardware. For others, they'd rather have something else. Not everyone would make the same choice as you as they might place more weight on SMAC than Half-Life. Shocking, I know.

So you already think the Civ3 version on the PC will be inferior to the Mac version?
It's a little early for that, isn't it?

quote: Not to state the obvious, but the CEO of a given company controls what products that company releases. A consumer buys what hardware he feels meets his needs. If I want the hardware Jobs is offering, I buy it. If I want the hardware Michael Dell is offering, I buy that instead. You seem to think that Mac users choose the Mac because they're so completely ignorant of PCs that they don't know better. Some Mac users prefer to keep their distance from Microsoft, some prefer the style and design of the Mac, others prefer the way the Finder works vs. Explorer, etc. These are by no means invalid reasons, and can't be measured in dollar amounts.

The major difference being one company controls your software and your hardware.
You're way too restricted in that platform.
On the PC end, one company essentially controls your software while no one controls your hardware.

quote: Along similar lines, compare a Jaguar XK8 with a Ford Mustang. You can successfully argue that the Mustang is cheaper, has a wider variety of add-ons, a better service record in Consumer Reports, has a better-performing Cobra edition, and is more "standard" than the XK8 when it comes to mechanics. That doesn't mean that all Jag buyers are so completely ignorant of the Mustang that they'd buy one instead if they only knew.

Not a good example, the Mustang's handle as well as a Dodge Neon.
And the quality is just horrible.

quote: I suspect it'll be along the same lines as SMAC. I'll start with an obvious one - multiple monitor support. That's a cheap shot, I know - what good is that on the PC with the barely-functional GDI support and non-existent DirectX fullscreen support? With all those video cards to choose from, you'd think Win32 would be able to run a game on a secondary monitor much better than the Mac...

I'm not sure what you mean.
I've personally run programs spread across both monitors. You can force it in the OS.
You can also run each as a virtual desktop, which is also built into the OS (2K and above).

And I think Windows' DirectX fullscreen support is a bit better than Mac's.
The Mac is really going to be burned w.r.t. 3D gaming as soon as more DirectX 8/9 games are coming out.
OpenGL is becoming far less attractive with each new Direct3D version.

quote: Aaaah! You're confusing me. You said in an earlier post: ""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. "

Buddy, you can have a less stable OS that's still pretty stable.
BSD is rock solid, OS X is not.
Desktop 2K/XP is not rock solid either.

quote: Your posts continue to entertain and amuse.

Believe me, the feeling is mutual.
I find it funny how somebody who clearly knows what they're talking about can support the platform.
Or do you just do it because that's where your money comes from?

	24-10-2001 22:20									#73
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I've had OS X since May and it hasn't crashed once.... but I guess that isn't "rock solid" stability....

On another note, it's good to be unbanned. I thought I was going to miss out on this argument just because I "circumvented the censor". Oh well, I've learned my lesson.

	24-10-2001 22:22									#74
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten I've had OS X since May and it hasn't crashed once.... but I guess that isn't "rock " solid stability....

And I've been using Windows XP for about a year, and only once did it crash (way back with Beta 1) and that was due to incompatable drivers.

	24-10-2001 22:24									#75
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Asher So why does OS X (And X.1 in particular) see such a speed increase in comparison? Obviously the entire approach to OS 9 and below was so horribly off that even Apple decided to ditch it and try again, using someone else's kernel.

When you talk about speed increase, are you referring to the act of running classic apps in the blue box in 10 or native Carbon/Cocoa app speed? One reason that applies to both is the filesystem. Under native MacOS 9 (not the blue box), all file calls go through the 68k emulator because they're still written in 68k code. You can conceivably get higher performance out of a classic app running in the blue box under 10 if it's disk-intensive. Ditto for native Carbon apps. The blue box also uses the OSX vm scheme instead of it's own, which makes a difference in performance as well.

quote: But when you run your older 'classic' programs, my understanding is they still do not use protective memory, rather they all use the same hunk of memory as the other OS9 programs, ala OS9?

Yes, but in practical use this isn't a big deal. I use classic for Entourage (a Microsoft product) and stability isn't really an issue there. Even so, you just restart the blue box if it tanks and continue working in X-native apps while the blue box reboots.

quote: I then upgraded my GeForce 2 MX (which I got for free since I do hardware reviews online) a GeForce 3 and run in the high frame rates once again.

So what you are saying is that there aren't any PC games that bring your CPU to its knees? The funny thing about that is that I don't have that problem either on my DP 800 with a GeForce 3.

quote: So you already think the Civ3 version on the PC will be inferior to the Mac version? It's a little early for that, isn't it?

No, every game I've ported has had stuff that is Mac-only. For example: MacMAME has the OpenGL/Glide blitters, SMAC had all that stuff listed before, Centipede had 6 additional levels, particle effects and a real arcade emulator, etc. There is always added value.

quote: Not a good example, the Mustang's handle as well as a Dodge Neon. And the quality is just horrible.

What you say indicates to me that it was a perfect example!

quote: I'm not sure what you mean...snip...And I think Windows' DirectX fullscreen support is a bit better than Mac's.

What I mean is that DirectX's fullscreen _multiple monitor_ support is a joke. Try running a game on your second monitor sometime.

However, I'll bite. What makes DX fullscreen better on the PC than the Mac? One thing I've noticed is that most PC games never gamma fade before the res switch so you get a little video noise. The Mac fullscreen APIs let you do this easily. It's one of those small aesthetic details that I like.

[QUOITE]
The Mac is really going to be burned w.r.t. 3D gaming as soon as more DirectX 8/9 games are coming out.
OpenGL is becoming far less attractive with each new Direct3D version.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure I understand. When we port a D3D game, we use our own D3D library that we've written. It's not an issue for us as long as the card supports it. And ATi and NVidia cards use the same hardware on Mac and PC now. We're professional game developers, not a bunch of high school hackers in a garage.

quote: Buddy, you can have a less stable OS that's still pretty stable. BSD is rock solid, OS X is not. Desktop 2K/XP is not rock solid either.

Ah, good. For a moment there I thought your comments about stability were intended to prove a point about XP vs OSX.

quote: I find it funny how somebody who clearly knows what they're talking about can support the platform. Or do you just do it because that's where your money comes from?

I also find it funny that someone can be so intolerant of other people's choices. I'm not advocating that everyone use a Mac, only that there are valid reasons why someone would. You seem to think that only a fool would buy a Mac simply because you would not. This is a textbook definition of intolerance. I hope for your sake that it only extends as far as computer preferences.

Brad

	24-10-2001 22:34									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

What are "incompatible drivers"? Oh yeah, that's one of those technical problems they have on Windows boxes that us Mac users just don't have to worry about. True plug-n-play sure is nice....

Joking aside, I don't really understand why you are so set on trashing the Mac platform. Most of the points you bring up are correct (ie more software and faster processors) but I don't think you really understand why Mac users prefer the Macintosh. I have no problem spending extra money to get the "Porsche" of computers. I don't play many PC games (I'm a console gamer) so the Mac has all the software that I need. It also has a much better GUI, IMHO, and is definitely much easier and less confusing to use. You seem to know a lot about computers, so ease of use may not matter to you, but most folks aren't comp sci majors and just want their computers to do what they want, when they want. Windows is still light years behind the Mac in consumer friendliness and I think this is the main reason people buy the Mac. That, and an undying hatred for Microsoft, but I'll leave that for another thread...

	24-10-2001 22:35									#77
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by bradman So what you are saying is that there aren't any PC games that bring your CPU to its knees? The funny thing about that is that I don't have that problem either on my DP 800 with a GeForce 3.

I still cannot run Max Payne at the max resolution because of restrictions with my system (CPU, RAM too slow).
However, it does take way, way too long to make MPEG-4 movies.

quote: However, I'll bite. What makes DX fullscreen better on the PC than the Mac? One thing I've noticed is that most PC games never gamma fade before the res switch so you get a little video noise. The Mac fullscreen APIs let you do this easily. It's one of those small aesthetic details that I like.

What's wrong with instant switching?
I don't really care if it fades and looks nice, because my Monitor flickers and snaps anyway.

quote: I'm not sure I understand. When we port a D3D game, we use our own D3D library that we've written. It's not an issue for us as long as the card supports it. And ATi and NVidia cards use the same hardware on Mac and PC now. We're professional game developers, not a bunch of high school hackers in a garage.

You're telling me you can port a DirectX 8.1 game to Mac with ease?
I wasn't aware that was possible, let alone easy?
If so, someone should try to port Max Payne.

quote: I also find it funny that someone can be so intolerant of other people's choices. I'm not advocating that everyone use a Mac, only that there are valid reasons why someone would. You seem to think that only a fool would buy a Mac simply because you would not. This is a textbook definition of intolerance. I hope for your sake that it only extends as far as computer preferences.

I wouldn't mind at all if those same Mac users don't call the Mac the "superior" platform (see above) and all that.
The hardware is lacking, and until now the OS was just pathetic.
Couple that with very limited selection and overpriced systems and you've got yourself a pretty weak system.

And I must admit, the Apple marketing bullsh*t really gets to me too. That's where my dislike for Macs comes from, mostly.

	24-10-2001 22:38									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten What are "incompatible drivers"? Oh yeah, that's one of those technical problems they have on Windows boxes that us Mac users just don't have to worry about. True plug-n-play sure is nice....

You try running extensions from OS 8 on OS X and tell me how well it works.

quote: Joking aside, I don't really understand why you are so set on trashing the Mac platform. Most of the points you bring up are correct (ie more software and faster processors) but I don't think you really understand why Mac users prefer the Macintosh. I have no problem spending extra money to get the "Porsche" of computers.

You just said the PC was faster, and you called the Mac the "Porsche" of computers?
The Mac is more like those Hybrid cars.
More efficient, more money, slower.

quote: I don't play many PC games (I'm a console gamer) so the Mac has all the software that I need. It also has a much better GUI, IMHO, and is definitely much easier and less confusing to use.

You should try playing with some of the XML-based themes in Windows XP. Can pretty much completely change your interface to what you want.

quote: You seem to know a lot about computers, so ease of use may not matter to you, but most folks aren't comp sci majors and just want their computers to do what they want, when they want. Windows is still light years behind the Mac in consumer friendliness and I think this is the main reason people buy the Mac.

How do you figure?
Have you seen how easy Windows XP is?
It's frustratingly easy that most users need to turn off lots of the "friendly" features because they're insulting.

I'd like to hear some examples of how the Mac is easier to use than the PC is.

	24-10-2001 22:45									#79
	Remove this text

quote: You just said the PC was faster, and you called the Mac the "Porsche" of computers?

The Porsche isn't one of the best cars in the world just because it has a big engine. It is an example of the all-around emphasis on quality design that Apple also brings to its products, which includes the asthetic concerns you seem so opposed to.

quote: I'd like to hear some examples of how the Mac is easier to use than the PC is.

No product activation! Check and mate....

	24-10-2001 22:49									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten No product activation! Check and mate....

Have you ever done product activation?
It's the most painless thing...really.
Takes 5 seconds to do and involves clicking 'Next' a few times.

Not to mention most users won't deal with it because it'll come pre-installed on their next computers.

	24-10-2001 23:36									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Who cares if it's an easy process? It shouldn't be in the OS at all and is just another attempt by Microsoft to monitor and abuse its customers. You can't even install XP on more than one machine without paying more money, which is bullsh*t. I'll keep OS X, thank you very much. At least Apple doesn't require me to get permission to use an OS I already payed for.

Last edited by Drake Tungsten on 25-10-2001 at 00:07

	25-10-2001 00:53									#82
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

When I use a pc, I feel like I'm using something that hates me and wants to get rid of me as soon as possible. When i use a mac, it's like going to the friendly grandma's who makes cookies, where all the other cool kids hang out too.

	25-10-2001 02:15									#83
	Put an end to popups!

quote: You can get a $200 computer to do essays, internet browsing, and mild game playing. You can do all of that and more on a PC, except you can also play a helluva lot more games with more speed and less money (in general).

you aren't listening to my stability arguement. a $200 PC would break four or five times a day.

also, you can't play ANY games on a $200 PC, or most games on a $1000 PC. In fact, the only way to play most stuff out there would be the high end route, and that's extremely expensive, more so than even a G4.

quote: Most computers don't die after 2 years (I've never had a PC die that was younger than 6 -- and that 6 was a Gateway ) If you know what you're doing when you buy a PC, you can get a fast, stable, cheap, and reliable machine for quite a bit less than you could get out of a Mac. As a bonus, you can upgrade more things, save money in the longrun

if you know what you're doing? according to you, that means not buying a compaq, running at the sight of a new gateway, staying away from windows 98/ME, and/or building your own from the ground up with high quality internet ordered parts...the list is added to almost every other day now.

macs - you buy one for $999 with OSX and you're set in terms of stability. there's nothing really to worry about : who to buy from, what OS to install. and a cheap mac is actually as rock solid as the more expensive G4s - one of those $899 uber cheap P4s from dell would have a tough time in that regard...

pcs - you buy one for $2000 with the only reasonable warranty, 256M of RAM (the only amount XP can go on while running most other programs), a spyware OS, and a 60 GB HD (oh I mean 50gigs - XP tends to be quite hefty as well).

$2000 top of the line, somewhat stable PC / $999 lowend iMac with much more solid hardware and software. GRANTED, macs don't get nearly as many products as PC users get...but for essays, internet browsing, stability, and several awesome games, apples are perfect. No, a $200 PC can't run Unreal Tournament and avoid the blue screen for two months.

quote: I find it funny how somebody who clearly knows what they're talking about can support the platform. Or do you just do it because that's where your money comes from?

sure you've never said anything about a PC career on these boards?

	25-10-2001 03:54									#84
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

if I could get a mac at those prices there would be no problem.I got a "loaded" blue and white g3 for just over 5k(Canadian) 3 years ago.The bare bones unit was just over 3k.....NO MONITOR.

I live in one of largest cities in Canada.There is not one retail outlet carrying mac stuff on their shelves right now.All are "registered outlets" and you have to pre order and wait months for anything.Might as well go online

The platform is great.I mean its as easy to use as an old Nintendo.Availabilty and software is not so great.

truth alert
Macs do crash


I have the 8.6 update d/led.Gave me a good excuse to get a download manager....I wait and see if it will be of any use to install.

Sounds like things are going very well at Westlake.

Last edited by Smash on 25-10-2001 at 04:00

	25-10-2001 04:50									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf you aren't listening to my stability arguement. a $200 PC would break four or five times a day.

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or ignorance.

quote: also, you can't play ANY games on a $200 PC, or most games on a $1000 PC. In fact, the only way to play most stuff out there would be the high end route, and that's extremely expensive, more so than even a G4.

You could most certainly play SMAC (you love it so much, don't you?) on it.
You can get a Duron 700MHz for something like $50 now alone!

quote: if you know what you're doing? according to you, that means not buying a compaq, running at the sight of a new gateway, staying away from windows 98/ME, and/or building your own from the ground up with high quality internet ordered parts...the list is added to almost every other day now.

Precisely!
You stay away from CRAP choices and buy from the GOOD ones.
You don't even have a choice with your Macs: Apple makes crappy G4 cube cases that crack, you can't go buy from another vendor now can you?
And you don't need to build computers from internet ordered parts, there are tons of component stores in most cities.

quote: macs - you buy one for $999 with OSX and you're set in terms of stability. there's nothing really to worry about : who to buy from, what OS to install. and a cheap mac is actually as rock solid as the more expensive G4s - one of those $899 uber cheap P4s from dell would have a tough time in that regard...

PCs - you buy one for $998 (or some figure LESS than that) with WinXP and you're set in terms of stability.
I'm glad you don't need to "worry" about who to buy from, that's such a relief!
And no, one of those uber cheap P4s would not have a tough time in that regard.
Dell uses top notch components on all machines, whether you get the fastest of those top notch components is entirely dependent on how much you want to spend.

quote: pcs - you buy one for $2000 with the only reasonable warranty, 256M of RAM (the only amount XP can go on while running most other programs), a spyware OS, and a 60 GB HD (oh I mean 50gigs - XP tends to be quite hefty as well).

LOL!
You just bought a $999 Mac and a $2000 PC?
PCs are CHEAPER 90% of the time.
You don't have a spyware OS (Don't you even START that stuff again, XP is not spyware in any way by the definition of spyware). XP is 1GB with a 'Professional' full install, that's not much different from OS X.

I like how you try to bend the truth with everything you say. Unfortunately for you I'm not the usual Mac user who will accept it and go "Gosh darnit, I'm glad I spent $3500 on my 867MHz G4!".

quote: $2000 top of the line, somewhat stable PC / $999 lowend iMac with much more solid hardware and software. GRANTED, macs don't get nearly as many products as PC users get...but for essays, internet browsing, stability, and several awesome games, apples are perfect. No, a $200 PC can't run Unreal Tournament and avoid the blue screen for two months.

A $200 Mac can't run Unreal Tournament either.
What is your point?
A $999 PC can run Unreal Tournament and even Max Payne. Something that Mac cannot.

quote: sure you've never said anything about a PC career on these boards?

I don't make any money off of PCs (currently), people just ship me free hardware to review.

	25-10-2001 05:09									#86
	smash - Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I run OS8.6, not the best apple has done by any means, and I get about one crash a month now that I've cleared out some problem files.

on the PC front, I've tried out WinME and Win98...two crashes a week would be a fair number from my experiance. win2000 and winXP are improved I'm sure, but according to Time magazine 3-10 days is the max you can hope to last even on those. and the spyware aspect of XP isn't the most appealing.

ash, if you've really been running for months on end with no reboots, you're either lying or doing something the average user wouldn't know how to do. browse some other forums, the crash rate is much higher on their machines for some reason.

	25-10-2001 05:54									#87
	Re: smash - Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf and the spyware aspect of XP isn't the most appealing.

I'm going to ask you not to comment on that any more, because you really have no clue how it works and are only contributing to the already widespread assumption that it is spyware. It is not. Go research it.

quote: ash, if you've really been running for months on end with no reboots, you're either lying or doing something the average user wouldn't know how to do. browse some other forums, the crash rate is much higher on their machines for some reason.

I don't run it for months on end, I never said I did.
I have to boot into Linux about every other day, otherwise it would have one helluva uptime.

However, Windows 2000 does run for a long, long time before a reboot.
There are servers with year or more uptime on netcraft (http://www.netcraft.com/ )

	25-10-2001 07:31									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: I can't tell if that's sarcasm or ignorance.

a $200 PC would be useful for nothing...that's pretty obvious...that'd be about a 133 MHz P1 or something with no graphics card, sound card, monitor, modem, RAM, anything...

quote: Precisely! You stay away from CRAP choices and buy from the GOOD ones. You don't even have a choice with your Macs: Apple makes crappy G4 cube cases that crack, you can't go buy from another vendor now can you? And you don't need to build computers from internet ordered parts, there are tons of component stores in most cities.

apple's G4 cube cases crack for no reason at all? weird.

quote: PCs - you buy one for $998 (or some figure LESS than that) with WinXP and you're set in terms of stability. I'm glad you don't need to "worry" about who to buy from, that's such a relief! And no, one of those uber cheap P4s would not have a tough time in that regard. Dell uses top notch components on all machines, whether you get the fastest of those top notch components is entirely dependent on how much you want to spend.

first off, WinXP doesn't sound too stable from the articles I've read. secondly, getting a $1000 computer to run XP at an optimal rate would be very difficult, assuming you're buying from Dell.

quote: you don't have a spyware OS (Don't you even START that stuff again, XP is not spyware in any way by the definition of spyware).

what's the whole registration system for? they really like checking in with their users I guess. spyware, maybe not. sure isn't a good thing for us though.

quote: A $200 Mac can't run Unreal Tournament either. What is your point?

you seemed to be comparing an imac to a $200 PC earlier, which is obviously flawed. the latter wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING nowadays. For $599 more you get a much more capable and stable iMac.

quote: A $999 PC can run Unreal Tournament and even Max Payne. Something that Mac cannot.

$999? Max Payne? No. try setting that up on the wonderful Dell.com, see what you get. Add $600 or $700 and it might come out right. not everyone buys a computer for max payne, by the way...

	25-10-2001 08:07									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf a $200 PC would be useful for nothing...that's pretty obvious...that'd be about a 133 MHz P1 or something with no graphics card, sound card, monitor, modem, RAM, anything...

LOL!
You can get a Duron 600MHz for $27 alone. (www.pricewatch.com)
128MB RAM is ~$10 now
Motherboard for the Duron: $38
Power supply for Duron: $8
Fan: $1-2
etc.
As you can see, you can get a pretty speedy PC for $200.
Wouldn't want to, but you could.

quote: first off, WinXP doesn't sound too stable from the articles I've read. secondly, getting a $1000 computer to run XP at an optimal rate would be very difficult, assuming you're buying from Dell.

Any PC > 300MHz will run Windows XP perfectly fine.
And which article says WinXP isn't stable?

quote: what's the whole registration system for? they really like checking in with their users I guess. spyware, maybe not. sure isn't a good thing for us though.

Registration is COMPLETELY OPTIONAL.
Activation is "necessary" for home users, and involves taking a snapshot of your hardware so they can tell if you install the OS on other computers (when you buy the OS, the license is for one computer, not as many as you want).
That is in no way spyware.
First, the 10 hardware devices it looks at are stored in a hash value, and then encrypted.
What people see when looking at the file is a bunch of seemingly random numbers. Even when decrypted, you'd have a really hard time getting to know what it meant.
"Spyware" monitors what you do and "phones home".
Windows XP never "phones home" except for the activation part during install, and it makes it very clear that it's doing so.

quote: you seemed to be comparing an imac to a $200 PC earlier, which is obviously flawed. the latter wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING nowadays. For $599 more you get a much more capable and stable iMac.

See my comment on what you can get for $200.

quote: $999? Max Payne? No. try setting that up on the wonderful Dell.com, see what you get. Add $600 or $700 and it might come out right. not everyone buys a computer for max payne, by the way...

If you would bother to check the sysreqs for Max Payne, and compare that to what you can build on the Dell site for cheap.
Of course not everybody buys for Max Payne.
But again: You don't need an iMac to surf the net or use word processing (you make it sound like it's okay because it CAN do that). You can do all of that on a PC, PLUS play games like Max Payne...

	25-10-2001 17:38									#90
	Re: Crash Rate Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

my iBook has not crashed in the last 2 months, always put to sleep between. I do internet´, office and games with it so that should be fairly unstable.

What you need to do is quite easy: get rid of those extensions you dont need, as few 3rd party as possible and then it is all up to apps. OK, and if you go OSX then you are fine (if you can put the machine to sleep.)

My G4 has crashed quite often yesterday, but that was somehow due to playing more than 3 quicktime 5 movies in IE5 (after the service release.. dont know whats going on there). But if you dont do anything fancy, a mac should NOT crahs more than once a month (or you just reboot it because you feel like it).