< Back to OSY 1.0 thread list

OSY 1.0 Thread Viewer

Thread #: 1563

Why the Macintosh Sucks for Gaming

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Sun Mar 17 02:19:05 2002

The Macintosh is not a good gaming platform.  It really isn't.  To me, it's not because it's lacking on computational ability.  It is because of title availability and system price.

Myth #1)  The Mac may not have many games, but it has the best.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.  It is accurate to say that many of the most popular games for the PC find its way to the Macintosh after 6mos to a Year (though a few are released simutaneously, but that aint many), but some of the best games:

Populus
Dungeon Keeper
Rollercoaster Tycoon
Starfleet Command
Combat Flight Simulator
Darkstone
Homeworld
High Heat

These are some great games in my collection that have no mac port.  And since most of these games are from franchises that are four or more years old, there is no hope for any sort of port.

The Macintosh has nearly nothing in the way of Combat Flight Sims like IL2.

Besides for Madden, they have almost nill in the sports arena.

Basically, The mac has a few FPSers and some RTOS's and one RPG and that's pretty much the whole story.

:p

Imitation Gruel

Sun Mar 17 02:43:02 2002

Why the Macintosh Sucks for Gaming

1. Fewer games
2. Systems are very expensive compared to comparable* PC
3. Systems frequently aren't as capable
4. Systems freqently aren't as upgradable

See that newest price comparison in the BF. In games that are available for both platforms, the iMac will simply be torn to shreds. In games the iMac has to emulate (Virtual PC), the shredding will be substantially worse.

*: if not superior

Harbinger

Sun Mar 17 02:57:45 2002

But... but... Myst!

:biggrin:

Jeremy Reimer

Sun Mar 17 04:51:21 2002

I totally agree.  The Mac is not a good gaming platform.

My iBook came with a couple of bundled games,
Cro-Magnon Rally (some kind of prehistoric Mario Kart), Nanosaur and Bugdom.  The last two are OS9 games and load up the Classic environment... Nanosaur refused to run the first time I tried it and forced me to kill Classic entirely.  Cro-Magnon Rally is okay but has a shitty framerate for an ATI Rage Mobility and a 500MHz G3, I think.

Anyway, I don't want too many games on my iBook, because then I'll be tempted to play games and not write.  I must write!

I just noticed that Omniweb has built-in spellchecking.  That is SO COOL.  (I just downloaded OmniWeb)

DuffMan

Sun Mar 17 07:40:39 2002

I blame DirectX.
Harbinger

Sun Mar 17 15:39:50 2002

Jeremy, aren't those games the same ones that shipped with the original iMacs?  It seems that I've been hearing about Nanosaur and Bugdom for ages.

If they are that old, why TF haven't they deigned to include something newer?

Since you mentioned that they play in Classic, does anyone know of any OSX-native games?

Evil Merlin

Sun Mar 17 16:43:58 2002

DirectX is one of the reasons why Windows based gaming is at a all time high. Care to remember in DOS days when the programmers had to take care of everything from Sound drivers to support for certian VESA modes? Let alone handle networking and input controls.

I blame the fact that Apple has a tiny market share, and most game makers don't give a fuck about something that is going to cost them more to port/develop than it will make money for them.

Socrates

Sun Mar 17 18:40:23 2002

Evil Merlin:
Close.  I just think apple has screwed over so many people, that it's caught up with them, both in hardware, and software.  

I notice a general dwindling of features that I'm intrested in, such as scsi cards, raid software, etc.  OS X seems to have limited the options for users, when, I expected the reverse.  I thought that many nix programs would be easily ported to the mac os.

I have yet to see any evidence of that.  What I have noticed is Apple is driving software companies out of business by taking their ideas, or niches, and writing their own software, to go with OS X.

gs

Riso

Sun Mar 17 19:48:39 2002

Mac's suck for gaming because the FPU sucks.
OscarWilde

Mon Mar 18 07:29:51 2002

and most game makers don't give a fuck about something that is going to cost them more to port/develop than it will make money for them.

Thats not entirely true. If a game has been designed well then its easier to port and the cost is not that much more.
Westlake does it all the time and seems to be making money. Granted they are a dedicated mac porting house for games. There are some very good articles about porting and the positive and negative aspects of it. A lot of it just comes down to initial develpment goals and the use of code and if it lends to an easier port.

Socrates,


Close.  I just think apple has screwed over so many people, that it's caught up with them, both in hardware, and software.  

Do you always have to sound so damn bitter or cynical? You even pooped on Jeremy's "i got an ibook' thread by suggesting that he maybe fucking with mac users. How about a little more optimism.

I notice a general dwindling of features that I'm intrested in, such as scsi cards, raid software, etc.  OS X seems to have limited the options for users, when, I expected the reverse.

OS X has raid. OS X can use SCSI. Maybe its the fact that at one time for fast desktops people used scsi because it was faster then the IDE drives. With ATA-100/133 available which is fast enough for almost all consumers and the fact that ATA drives are much cheaper we are seeing SCSI companies put less effort in SCSI itself.
I remember a time when i could walk into a store and get a huge list of price for various scsi harddrives. Now a days i see a lot more ata harddrives and fewer scsi drives.
:rolleyes" So yeah, lets blame Apple for when the industry it self has adopted ATA for a larger range of harddrive performance.
SCSI is still used but its becoming more and more relagated to very high end desktops and to servers.
Heck in OS X you can RAID ATA drives.

 I thought that many nix programs would be easily ported to the mac os.
I have yet to see any evidence of that.

Maybe you'd see it if you looked? THere are quite a few unix ported programs to OS X. <x-files>the truth is out there</x-files>

 What I have noticed is Apple is driving software companies out of business by taking their ideas, or niches, and writing their own software, to go with OS X.

You talking about that supposed drama regarding the CD burning software? Do you believe tabloids? OS X is nearly close to a year old (i think) so its not bad that we have quite a bit of software available for OS X.
Second is that Apple is providing a 'newbie' solution as part of its integrated package. Its not the only way to do buisness but its the way Apple does it. This is what makes Apple, i.e. a very tightly integrated hardware/software package. It doesn't stop anyone from coming in and creating their own newbie package nor does it infringe upon the professional apps.
As for FCP, well its not packaged and media pro's have a choice between FCP and similar apps.

Plus Apple could not wait for developers to create apps for OS X. Apple needed to get OS X out with software that it could use to not only market OS X but the macintosh.

Damn, is it that fucking hard to see what they are doing.

OS X has garnered more interest towards Apple. It even got Jeremy to get an iBook. Although his current thread may be a sign of his eventual departure from the mac platform. :(

I'm sure i wasted my time since like most people, i usually skim over your post as you never seem to have anything constructive to say.

(Edited by OscarWilde at 2:31 pm on Mar. 18, 2002)

OscarWilde

Mon Mar 18 07:30:51 2002

oh and yes, in general macs do suck for gaming.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:mad:
AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Mon Mar 18 08:41:06 2002

oh and yes, in general macs do suck for gaming.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was very poopily put. :)

Evil Merlin

Mon Mar 18 13:03:17 2002

Oscar, it is simply NOT worth it for most companies to port software and hardware to the Mac. There is not enough growth or platform momentum. Why spend the money on a dwindling platform?
Madan

Mon Mar 18 13:30:37 2002


The Macintosh is not a good gaming platform.  It really isn't.  To me, it's not because it's lacking on computational ability.  It is because of title availability and system price.

I disagree. And I'd hazard to guess that this supposition was made due to a lack of time spent gaming on a Mac.

Case in point. This weekend, I bought some new games. The first being Heroes III complete for my PC(very addictive)...

The second being Quake Arena Gold(Q3A and Q3TA).(Mac and PC, which btw, is why I've always been a fan of Blizzard and iD...they take care of their Mac customers)

While the system requirements for Q3TA was *well* within acceptable spec limits(required) for my PC and despite the fact that I had the new nVIDIA drivers, I was unable to play it. I got framerates of >25 on settings that were medium-low.

The game ran at 30 fps on my Mac(low settings). I myself was surprised by this. I mean, after all, my Compaq is "technically" twice as "fast" as my Mac but I can only play Q3TA on my Mac.(In fairness, regular, vanilla Q3A can only run at 38 fps on my iFruit at low settings and on my Compaq it runs on med-high for 40+ fps, so regular quake 3 is more pleasurable on my PC.

Still, it's a pain in the ass playing both on different machines.  What amazes me truly, though is not that the PC runs about the same(at best) on TA but that my TA runs on the iMac *AT ALL*, seeing as how it fails the system requirements by a bit.


Myth #1)  The Mac may not have many games, but it has the best.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.  It is accurate to say that many of the most popular games for the PC find its way to the Macintosh after 6mos to a Year (though a few are released simutaneously, but that aint many), but some of the best games:

*Most*. In fact, when I hear "best games missing on Mac", only one game seems to come up with any consistency: HL. And, imo, I don't consider that all that much of a great game(yes, I've beaten it...yes I've played it solo and with mods like DoD and CS...I still hate it).


Populus
Dungeon Keeper
Rollercoaster Tycoon

A. Populous is *not* a "great game. It's a good game. Dungeon Keeper is *not* in the top pantheon of games either.

Mac *does* have ThemePark Tycoon. I ran the demo on my machine just last month(it chugged on my weak iFruit though).


Starfleet Command
Combat Flight Simulator

You're right, Mac doesn't have SC.  SC is a good game. I *like* SC more than anybody on here, I'll wager, but it is *not* considered a "great game" by *any* gaming magazine or site. Nor has it been rated as such.

Simulators suck. If I wanted to fly a plane. I'd learn how to fly a real fucking plane.


Darkstone

Darkstone sucks and has gotten low-ass ratings from several mags. PCXL just being one of them.


Homeworld
High Heat

I hate baseball. If I wanted to play baseball, I'd go play fucking baseball. As for Homeworld. A good game. A very good game. You can grab it now off the shelves in the bargain bins for about 6 bucks. :rolleyes:


These are some great games in my collection that have no mac port.  And since most of these games are from franchises that are four or more years old, there is no hope for any sort of port.

The Macintosh has nearly nothing in the way of Combat Flight Sims like IL2.

Besides for Madden, they have almost nill in the sports arena.

Basically, The mac has a few FPSers and some RTOS's and one RPG and that's pretty much the whole story.

:p

Let's look at the best sellers they do have:

All of the Icewind Dale/Planescape/Baldur's Gate series.
All of the Quake1/II/III/TA series.
UT/UT2
All the Diablo series.
All the Starcraft/Warcraft series.
R6/RS/Ghost Recon
Civilization 1/II/III/And Series(all)
Sims(all)
Sim Coasters/City/Tower
Tycoon (Themepark/H)
Realmz(all)
Wolfenstein series(all)
Elite Force...
Oni
Myth I/II/III
Myst series(all)(A *great* game that has sold twice as many copies as HL in total)
Blackstone Ch.

And let's not forget, the development tools for several of the above listed gamez are better on Mac.

Quake III, for example, has the best model/skin viewer and editor: Pakrat.
Realmz can *only* edited on Mac.
And BGI/II has additional Mac editors not found on PC.


The big games all have Mac support, btw:
Doom 3
UT 2
Warcraft 3
HOMM 4
Starcraft 2
Quake 4
Elite Force 2
Neverwinter Nights

If all of that doesn't keep you busy for *years* then you have way too much time on your hands.

Notice how the above are the best sellers and most acclaimed games around.


Quote: Why the Macintosh Sucks for Gaming

1. Fewer games
2. Systems are very expensive compared to comparable* PC
3. Systems frequently aren't as capable
4. Systems freqently aren't as upgradable

1. True. Still *plenty* of options in many genres.
2. True. Price<> "Good for anything."
3. False. Systems usually *are* capable with no worries about compatibility that Win users deal with.
4. False. G-towers are fully upgradeable and iFruits are RAM upgradeable which is what matters most.


See that newest price comparison in the BF. In games that are available for both platforms, the iMac will simply be torn to shreds. In games the iMac has to emulate (Virtual PC), the shredding will be substantially worse.

Not on the new OSX VPC. Performance specs on the new VPC show it only 100% slower(2ce as slow) as Windows. In the next iteration(releasing in Feb 2003) the it'll be even faster. If two years from now, the difference is only 10%, what will you do then, harp only about price? Keep in mind that in 95' the delta was almost 500%.

Bugdom, Nano and CR are all *free* and developed by small houses(>10 ppl). Stop complaining. What did Windows come with? Solitaire(which Mac has on their site for free also...better version).

DirectX is one of the reasons why Windows based gaming is at a all time high. Care to remember in DOS days when the programmers had to take care of everything from Sound drivers to support for certian VESA modes? Let alone handle networking and input controls.

Mac uses openGL, which imo, is *still* better.
           


I notice a general dwindling of features that I'm intrested in, such as scsi cards, raid software, etc.  OS X seems to have limited the options for users, when, I expected the reverse.  I thought that many nix programs would be easily ported to the mac os.

Gee, a bashfest, from Santilli(*edited*..sorry E_M), there's a new one. OSX is a "baby", figuratively speaking. It will take time to make it a viable platform. Technologically, there's everything *right* with the platform. Technically, it's a superb OS. *Most* Win users admit that, grudgingly. Only few users with agendas can't.


I have yet to see any evidence of that.  What I have noticed is Apple is driving software companies out of business by taking their ideas, or niches, and writing their own software, to go with OS X.

And yet these offerings are fantastic. FCP? Best out there. Apple makes it.

If noone made software for your platform...what would *you* do. I can tell you what Windows did.

MS Office? IE? SQL Server? Etc...the list goes on and on. Heck, they're even making their own games(although all suck except for Halo and AoE I/II).

because it was faster then the IDE drives. With ATA-100/133 available which is fast enough for almost all consumers and the fact that ATA drives are much cheaper we are seeing SCSI companies put less effort in SCSI itself.

Maximum PC has a great article in this month's magazine about this.  They compare a fast IDE vs fast SCSI.

In enterprise db work, the SCSI spanks the IDE but in general reading, the IDE doesn't fall far behind. In writing, the IDE *won* and is *much* cheaper over cost. You guys always harp about price. That should sit well.

Since SCSI only does well with edb, and we're talking about *games*, the point is moot.

BTW, Mac has SCSI...just not standard. More misrepresentations.


You talking about that supposed drama regarding the CD burning software? Do you believe tabloids? OS X is nearly close to a year old (i think) so its not bad that we have quite a bit of software available for OS X.
Second is that Apple is providing a 'newbie' solution as part of its integrated package. Its not the only way to do buisness but its the way Apple does it. This is what makes Apple, i.e. a very tightly integrated hardware/software package. It doesn't stop anyone from coming in and creating their own newbie package nor does it infringe upon the professional apps.
As for FCP, well its not packaged and media pro's have a choice between FCP and similar apps.

BTW, it's important to note that OSX has support for products like CF MX(as well as all other Macromedia products, including JRun Server) and Oracle and Apple have been talking about a port. And why not? With its *Nix architecture, it's as fast and stable as *anything* MS has come out with, for OS *and* with new Apache out, it can only get *better*.

BTW, NEO has *FULL* .NET support through CFML runtime, which means Apple will run .NET too.

Gotta love it.

M.

(Edited by Madan at 5:33 am on Mar. 18, 2002)

(Edited by Madan at 6:26 am on Mar. 18, 2002)

Evil Merlin

Mon Mar 18 14:12:13 2002

Dude, get off the crack pipe. I did not say anything in what you quoted. What I DID say was it is really not in the best interest of companies to port to the Mac for the  most part. MOST of the Mac ports do not make enough money for the expenses incurred porting TO the Mac.

As for your quote about MacOSX, funny, Windows XP has been out for far shorter of a time, and has much MUCH more support.

As for flying in simultators, it is amazing you feel that way. As most ground schools use Microsoft Flight Sims's to train future pilots, and the Air Force uses a heavily modified Falcon 4.0 for non-motion simulators.

Madan

Mon Mar 18 14:28:51 2002


As for your quote about MacOSX, funny, Windows XP has been out for far shorter of a time, and has much MUCH more support.

You're comparing Apples and Orangutans.

XP is based off of 2k, that, in turn, was based off of NT.

MS has had almost half a decade to figure most of the hairy stuff out before XP was even *released*.

How long has Apple been making a *nix-base OS?

A year...tops.

M.

(Edited by Madan at 6:30 am on Mar. 18, 2002)

Imitation Gruel

Mon Mar 18 14:55:11 2002

3. False. Systems usually *are* capable with no worries about compatibility that Win users deal with.
4. False. G-towers are fully upgradeable and iFruits are RAM upgradeable which is what matters most.

On number 3. First, I didn't bring up compatibility, so I'm not going to address that in your rebuttal. Second, I say it's true. Framerates test at Xlr8yourMac (and even Apple itself) show that Macs are slower than high-end PC's. I only said *capable*. I will concede that I probably should have used a speed-based adjective.

On number 4, I'll give you an example. Take any SiS 735 based board (a Socket A chipset), and it'll be upgradable from a Duron 600 with PC100 SDRAM all the way to an AthlonXP 2100+ with PC2100 DDR-SDRAM. No Mac motherboard yet introduced has even close to the same range. Furthermore, from what I've seen, Mac processor upgrade cards are extremely expensive relative to what you get. But this, I will concede, is due to limited market/limited card. And since people can find SiS 735 based boards and build PC's with them (check CPU&Mobo Tech, they're common), the example stands. Furthermore, for iFruits (I like this term), the fact that the graphics are not upgradable is a major thumbs down. At high res., or depending on the game, it's videocard limited, and the new iFruits don't have videocards per se, they have soldered-on video chips and VRAM.

You get points for politeness. :)

Harbinger

Mon Mar 18 15:23:50 2002

The big games all have Mac support, btw:
Doom 3
UT 2
Warcraft 3
HOMM 4
Starcraft 2
Quake 4
Elite Force 2
Neverwinter Nights

How many of these games haven't even been released yet?  :confused:

Evil Merlin

Mon Mar 18 15:27:47 2002


You're comparing Apples and Orangutans.

XP is based off of 2k, that, in turn, was based off of NT.

MS has had almost half a decade to figure most of the hairy stuff out before XP was even *released*.

How long has Apple been making a *nix-base OS?

A year...tops.

How long was MacOS X in development???

Apple had PLENTY of time to work up developer support for MacOS X and they did not. With a few false starts, poor developer support (even thru to today), Apple fucked up the whole rollout of MacOS X to the point where a LOT of development firms for the Mac itself are not using native MacOS X programming, they are simply making ports to MacOS X.

Jeremy Reimer

Mon Mar 18 17:41:20 2002


How long has Apple been making a *nix-base OS?

*ahem* A/UX *ahem*

:biggrin:

Madan

Mon Mar 18 17:49:07 2002

*ahem* A/UX *ahem*

Oh fucking please.
You're comparing that to wide/mass release software for their MAIN OS offering, like 2k/NT? You're comparing that to desktop standard OS practice?

Your grin betrays you. You don't take your answer any more seriously than I do.

M.

Madan

Mon Mar 18 17:51:30 2002


On number 4, I'll give you an example. Take any SiS 735 based board (a Socket A chipset), and it'll be upgradable from a Duron 600 with PC100 SDRAM all the way to an AthlonXP 2100+ with PC2100 DDR-SDRAM. No Mac motherboard yet introduced has even close to the same range. Furthermore, from what I've seen, Mac processor upgrade cards are extremely expensive relative to what you get. But this, I will concede, is due to limited market/limited card. And since people can find SiS 735 based boards and build PC's with them (check CPU&Mobo Tech, they're common), the example stands. Furthermore, for iFruits (I like this term), the fact that the graphics are not upgradable is a major thumbs down. At high res., or depending on the game, it's videocard limited, and the new iFruits don't have videocards per se, they have soldered-on video chips and VRAM.

You get points for politeness.  


I never said Mac was faster. But they can be played and played well on a Mac.

My ex-teacher has a dual G4 with a new GeForce 3 Ti and it flies with fps of up to 92. That's fast. By any measuring stick.

M.

(Edited by Madan at 10:12 am on Mar. 18, 2002)

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Mon Mar 18 17:56:55 2002

madan, I think you're painting yourself into a corner with your thoughts on game selection.

you are completely wrong on that however.  The Mac is missing a LOT of good games, those examples were just ones from my collection.

Evil Merlin

Mon Mar 18 18:04:42 2002

My ex-teacher has a dual G4 with a new GeForce 3 Ti and it flies with fps of up to 92. That's fast. By any measuring stick

Well without details it is not much of a measuring stick at all.

My box gets 219 FPS.

Madan

Mon Mar 18 18:06:23 2002

How many of these games haven't even been released yet?  

None have. That's precisely my point. I gave that list to show that not only does the Mac have most of the greatest games ever released but also to show that it will *continue* to have most of the heavy hitters.  Check their sites. They all support Mac.

M.

Madan

Mon Mar 18 18:08:29 2002

Well without details it is not much of a measuring stick at all.

My box gets 219 FPS.

Mac dual G4 500. 256 mb RAM. All settings on high.

(she won't let me near her new dual 800 machine wi 2 gigs of RAM).

M.

Harbinger

Mon Mar 18 18:15:27 2002

from Madan posted at 1:06 pm on Mar. 18, 2002None have. That's precisely my point. I gave that list to show that not only does the Mac have most of the greatest games ever released but also to show that it will *continue* to have most of the heavy hitters.  Check their sites. They all support Mac.

While all those joints say they will have Mac versions, how many will ship simultaneously with the Windows version?  6 months later?  A year later?

That's the biggest impediment I see for the Mac as a gaming platform.  Not only does it get fewer titles, it is all-too-often that the titles that are made come out much later than the Windows edition.  Gaming is often an immediate-gratification situation.

<sarcasm> But then again, if you're willing to wait 2-3 months to get the iMac2 you ordered back in February, then there's no big deal in waiting another 6 months to get a game that was popular on the PC last year. </sarcasm>

Please note that the "you" mentioned in this scenario is not intended to be you in particular.  Just wanted to cover the bases in anticipating your response. ;)

Madan

Mon Mar 18 18:20:07 2002

How long was MacOS X in development???


???? Let's say five years. Plus one for release?

Fine.

How long was NT, 2k and XP in development? Five years before the release of NT? So Mac has six years and MS has twelve?

Any way you slice it, it still has more time with its present OS.


Apple had PLENTY of time to work up developer support for MacOS X and they did not.

Uh, no they didn't. Apple was too busy trying to make the OS *work*. It does. When NT first came out, I remember our university bought one for internal services and it was a fsking mess. It didn't recognize *anything*. It didn't work with *anything*. And yet MS told us all to be "patient".

You don't use Mac. It's not your platform. You don't have to deal with it, so stop your bitching.


Oh, and AYB, I don't think Mac is missing "tons" of cool games. I never said it had all but it does have *most*.

I gave examples of turn based strategy, arcade, mystery, puzzle, rts, role playing, FPS and multi-playing.

If that's not enough for you, then don't get a Mac.

The fact of the matter is if you want to start including "has been" games and wannabe "top burners" in the pantheons of greats, that's your perrogative but:

A. Most of the games you listed are not "top games".

B. Those few that are aren't the most successful of the bunch.

If you want games like "Bork, the monkey, climbing the tuna tower with his goat dick" independent releases, you'll have to go to Bill's platform for that.


:rolleyes:

M.

Riso

Mon Mar 18 18:26:16 2002

???? Let's say five years. Plus one for release

it's +10 years and then another ten for the NeXT stuff, and oh, another five for the bsd stuff.

yepp, parts of mac os x are up to 25 years old.

Evil Merlin

Mon Mar 18 18:27:53 2002

I DO indeed use a Mac with OSX. I still think it is a piece of shit compared to a modern PC running Windows XP.
Madan

Mon Mar 18 18:31:19 2002


While all those joints say they will have Mac versions, how many will ship simultaneously with the Windows version?  6 months later?  A year later?

Arena shipped three months later.

BGII shipped six months later.

I know, I bought both of them.

Diablo II? Same time. Icewind Dale? Same time. Wolfenstein? Same time. Elite Force? Two months late.
Myth? First on Mac. Starcraft,  four months late.

Most are close to the same time now. There used to be a disparity but that disparity is closing. But yeah, it's a year+... :rolleyes:


That's the biggest impediment I see for the Mac as a gaming platform.  Not only does it get fewer titles, it is all-too-often that the titles that are made come out much later than the Windows edition.  Gaming is often an immediate-gratification situation.

Wrong.


<sarcasm> But then again, if you're willing to wait 2-3 months to get the iMac2 you ordered back in February, then there's no big deal in waiting another 6 months to get a game that was popular on the PC last year. </sarcasm>

The iDews are in demand. It must just kill you huh?  Take XP. I like XP but I don't think it's *that* great. Did I get pissed when they sold a lot of copies? (whoops, they didn't...they just offered a ton through OEM...besides the point) No. 'Cause I don't give a chit. Why Win users get so angry about minimal Mac success is quizzical at best.


Please note that the "you" mentioned in this scenario is not intended to be you in particular.  Just wanted to cover the bases in anticipating your response.  

*shrug*

M.

Madan

Mon Mar 18 18:36:49 2002


it's +10 years and then another ten for the NeXT stuff, and oh, another five for the bsd stuff.

yepp, parts of mac os x are up to 25 years old.

:rolleyes:

Oh, fsking please.

A. Apple <> NeXT. It's not even the same engineers. Only the same management. Hint: Management don't *code* the platform. :rolleyes:

B. BSD <> Darwin. It was rebuilt and re-designed for Apple.

C. OSX <> NeXT. The two OSes and their makeup is completely different.



I DO indeed use a Mac with OSX. I still think it is a piece of shit compared to a modern PC running Windows XP.

There's no accounting for bad taste.


M.

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Mon Mar 18 18:44:23 2002

Oh, and AYB, I don't think Mac is missing "tons" of cool games. I never said it had all but it does have *most*.

But I really is :(

A. Most of the games you listed are not "top games".

Dungeon Keeper (original) was rated at 90% by [u]PC Gamer[/u], High Heat was 85% something, as was Darkstone.  Populus II was 88% I think, and was perhaps the best RTS I have ever played (Phucking Phunny Indeed).  Same thing with CFS2. Roller Coaster Tychoon was very highly rated and very very popular.  I didn't bring up all teh games in my collection, but only the best and most popular.

The fact of the matter is if you want to start including "has been" games and wannabe "top burners" in the pantheons of greats, that's your perrogative but:

A. Most of the games you listed are not "top games".

Yes they were at the time


B. Those few that are aren't the most successful of the bunch.

Yes they were.  I mean, it's not like I'm bringing up "Birthright:The Gorgons Alliance" (a BGII/RISK type game done very poorly) here.  All I've listed sold well, were highly rated by publications, were very fun to play according to the Mighty AYB, and never made it to the Mac.

I could have listed dozens more that I didn't own, but I needn't bother


If you want games like "Bork, the monkey, climbing the tuna tower with his goat dick" independent releases, you'll have to go to Bill's platform for that.

Are you sure you're not taking poopy-headed lessons from OW in exchange for all the times he has used "MUAHAHAHAHAHA"?????? //another .02cents from OW's account :cheesy:

The Mac isn't a real good gaming platform.  There may be a few games you like but redundency is key for the genre.  Innovative new types of games

Harbinger

Mon Mar 18 19:39:28 2002

The iDews are in demand. It must just kill you huh?

No, not at all. Wherever did you get that idea? :confused:  You reading between the lines again when there's nothing but blank space there? :confused:  Apple can make what they want, and I hope they sell as many as they can.

Take XP. I like XP but I don't think it's *that* great. Did I get pissed when they sold a lot of copies? (whoops, they didn't...they just offered a ton through OEM...besides the point)

You missed your own point.  XP did sell many copies, even if 99% were from OEMs on new computers -- those are still copies of XP that have been sold.  If your attempts was to poke fun at the number of retail copies sold, well, I can't argue with you since I don't have any numbers on how many were sold off the shelf.  If you don't have any either, then I don't know what you have to scoff about.

Conversely, Apple has *no* OEM sales since there are no OEMs besides itself.  And even if every Mac owner who has a Mac that can run OSX went out and purchased OSX off the shelf, that number would wuite probably still be lower than the number of XP licenses sold (simply because there are so many OEM sales, and the trend still seems to be around 25:1 sales PC:Mac).

No. 'Cause I don't give a chit. Why Win users get so angry about minimal Mac success is quizzical at best.

I don't think that this is the case.  I think "Win users" get tired of all the hype brought about by Apple and its most ardent followers.  If Apple didn't raise a stink and compare itself favorably to other desktop boxen by using rigged 'cookoffs' then I don't think the computing world would give it a second glance.  But then again, bad publicity is better than no publicity at all, I suppose.

Then you get the raving lunatics who take this half-baked info from Apple and then construct a religion about it -- and try to denigrate those who don't follow this religion.  They're the ones who blather on continuously about how the top-of-the-line Mac can outperform <some PC> even though independent testing doesn't back up such claims.  When their technical arguments fail, they usually drop back to the default "elegance tactic" and "the Mac experience."  These are the things I respond to, when I do respond.

But no, the continued existance of Apple does not get my panties in a bunch; the fact that there is demand for their products does not make me angry.

The Apple-as-a-religion can go, though.  It's certainly not all the users that are like this, nor do I ever imply such.  The "superior" attitude created by Jobs and fostered by so many unthinking, uncritical (of Apple) users is what I "can't stand."  I'd be willing to bet that this is also true for most of the Arsians who are called "Winlots."

Consider this: I'd like to try OSX.  Why?  Because I'm a general computer geek and I like to have exposure to different technologies.  But unfortunately I can't, because I don't own an Apple computer and I don't have the spare cash to pay for what would only really amount to a toy (WRT my needs and the use of the product).  If Apple's prices weren't so high, I might consider it when I'm more fully-employed.  But right now I can't even afford a second-hand Mac that'll run OSX at a decent level.

Evil Merlin

Mon Mar 18 19:40:45 2002

There's no accounting for bad taste.

Which expains your choice in the Mac platform...

Madan

Mon Mar 18 19:42:12 2002


Which expains your choice in the Mac platform...

As clever as always....

Oh, wait, you aren't.

M.

Madan

Mon Mar 18 20:01:06 2002


Quote: The iDews are in demand. It must just kill you huh?

No, not at all. Wherever did you get that idea?   You reading between the lines again when there's nothing but blank space there?   Apple can make what they want, and I hope they sell as many as they can.

"When I said you I meant most responders. I was simply trying to answer anticipatory your response."


Quote: Take XP. I like XP but I don't think it's *that* great. Did I get pissed when they sold a lot of copies? (whoops, they didn't...they just offered a ton through OEM...besides the point)

You missed your own point.  XP did sell many copies, even if 99% were from OEMs on new computers -- those are still copies of XP that have been sold.

No, my point was never whether XP sold a lot or not. So I guess you're missing *my* point. My XP aside *did* touch upon the unscrupulous MS practices wi OEMs and MS proclivity for forcing you to buy XP over 9x or 2k by making it the default on the OEM machines. But that was just an aside.


Quote: No. 'Cause I don't give a chit. Why Win users get so angry about minimal Mac success is quizzical at best.

I don't think that this is the case.  I think "Win users" get tired of all the hype brought about by Apple and its most ardent followers.  If Apple didn't raise a stink and compare itself favorably to other desktop boxen by using rigged 'cookoffs' then I don't think the computing world would give it a second glance.  But then again, bad publicity is better than no publicity at all, I suppose.

Bullshit. Look at my links in the Battlefront Sucks thread. prowlerguy, Venture will continue to bitch about how "Mac sucks" regardless of whether a Mac fan opens his/her mouth. Mac Achia is a great example of this. Why do fucktards like Venture go in there for trolling? Noone is forcing Mac news under his nose?

Oh yeah, 'cause he(and many Win users like him) are *assholes*.

When do you hear me *brag* about Mac? The closest I got was listing excitement over having CF MX move over to OSX and for having .NET compatibility for *christ's sake*! Same thing with Wilde. Compare that with the number of "Mac sucks" threads (like this one), of which 99% are baseless, on this board...kidding or otherwise.


Then you get the raving lunatics who take this half-baked info from Apple and then construct a religion about it -- and try to denigrate those who don't follow this religion.  They're the ones who blather on continuously about how the top-of-the-line Mac can outperform <some PC>

Please point a post listing this, that was made...hmmmmm in the last four months by me or any regular Mac Ars regular. Please, I WANT YOU TO TRY.

I mean if you're going to into the absurd extreme, why shouldn't I?

"How about all those pitiful techno-nerds that have crater faces, flabby, pasty bodies, no girlfriends, that hang out talking SCSI/RAM and reg/bios/dll all day and that flame Mac users for being "idiots" because they'd rather get their work done rather than pump jizz on their bellies after jerking off to the idea of .NET?"


even though independent testing doesn't back up such claims.  When their technical arguments fail, they usually drop back to the default "elegance tactic" and "the Mac experience."  These are the things I respond to, when I do respond.

That's because not everyone is a Vulcan. There are intangibles such as "feel" that *do* matter. It matters everyday when someone picks a BMW over a Lexus or when someone picks a pair of Nike over Reebok.  Not everything is specs.


But no, the continued existance of Apple does not get my panties in a bunch; the fact that there is demand for their products does not make me angry.

The Apple-as-a-religion can go, though.  It's certainly not all the users that are like this, nor do I ever imply such.  The "superior" attitude created by Jobs and fostered by so many unthinking, uncritical (of Apple) users is what I "can't stand."  I'd be willing to bet that this is also true for most of the Arsians who are called "Winlots."

Please. Look at the list for "annoying Arsers" in other threads. 99% are Mac users. Nib isn't even half as bad as prowlerguy but noone mentions that email-bombing freak.

Or BEIGE vs. Venture? One wrote a book on Photoshop without knowing a damn thing about it, while trolling incessantly. The other is an invisible graphic artist at best that posts a couple times a week!

The number of Winlots on BF are insane. I just love comments made by BFG:

BFG: "You can't play Q3A on Mac..."
Madan: "I play on an iFruit."
BFG: "No you can't...you can't get 60000 fps, therefore you can't play!"
Madan: "Then that character playing on XXX.XXX.XXX.XX server named "Madan" is just an amazing bot."
BFG: "Fuck you Maclot!"
Madan: ":rolleyes: Ok, jackass, let's play..."
BFG: "Uh, no...I can't."

:rolleyes:



Consider this: I'd like to try OSX.  Why?  Because I'm a general computer geek and I like to have exposure to different technologies.  But unfortunately I can't, because I don't own an Apple computer and I don't have the spare cash to pay for what would only really amount to a toy (WRT my needs and the use of the product).  If Apple's prices weren't so high, I might consider it when I'm more fully-employed.  But right now I can't even afford a second-hand Mac that'll run OSX at a decent level.

I never said Apple is cheap. In fact, I've stated otherwise SEVERAL TIMES.

But the fact of the matter is that a lot of people can't afford neat stuff.

I would love to afford a BMW Z3 or that new Corvette-like Mercedes. Heck, most ppl would own them if they cost about the same as an Audi or Lexus, right? They can't cost *that* much more to make, so what's the f.....g problem? The problem is that it's not in their market identity.

Get over it.

M.

(Edited by Madan at 12:02 pm on Mar. 18, 2002)

Evil Merlin

Mon Mar 18 20:14:29 2002

For fucks sake compairing a Mac to a car is bullshit...

If you want to compair a Mac to a car you would have to have one made of plastic, can only drive on 3-4% of the worlds roads, has only a 50 Hp engine when most have 100+ Hp, only gets good gas milage when running on one section of road, claims to have the best seats and dash board ever, but a close look reveals that it is actually the same one used 10 years ago by another company only this time they added pin stripes and the faster you go the larger the tach and speedo get.

Madan

Mon Mar 18 20:56:17 2002

For fucks sake compairing a Mac to a car is bullshit...

Wrong, it's eminently logical. Let's look at some of the faux suppositions you make:


If you want to compair a Mac to a car you would have to have one made of plastic,

:rolleyes:

Most cars are made of polymer composites(if you were awake in school, you'd know this), which is fundamentally: "plastic".

can only drive on 3-4% of the worlds roads,

:rolleyes:
There is no file I can't read on my iMac with my new(included, btw) versions of AppleWorks, Photoshop and MacLink Plus.

Nice try though.


has only a 50 Hp engine when most have 100+ Hp,

Again with this crap. It's more like a supercharged Mustang > BMW. But that doesn't mean that the Beemer ain't plenty fast. But yeah, a Dual G4 1ghz with 2 gigs of RAM would be a snail.

:rolleyes:

I ignored the rest of the comments.

If you're going to extremes, again, so can I....

A Windows machine:

-Works with the compatible 50% of all gas put within it.

-The car would "crash" into a lamp pole every two hours.

-You wouldn't be able to keep the car very long because you'd need to update the driver every 2 months or it'd break down.

-All machines look the same: like a Yugo.

-The cars would be so cheap, a book value for them wouldn't exist past year two.

-Learning how to drive one would be like trying to catch a bullet with your teeth.

-The interior would make fuzzy dice look like the epitome of coolness.

But yeah...

M.

(Edited by Madan at 1:09 pm on Mar. 18, 2002)

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Mon Mar 18 21:04:11 2002

Car analogies are sucktacular...
Jeremy Reimer

Mon Mar 18 21:06:08 2002


A. Apple <> NeXT. It's not even the same engineers. Only the same management. Hint: Management don't *code* the platform.

OSX uses a lot of NeXT legacy code.  According to one of our developers, you can take a NeXT application, and if it doesn't do direct screen writes, you can recompile it EXACTLY.  NO CHANGES.  If you look at Cocoa Development, all the API codes begin with "NS".  Three guesses what NS stands for.

When I run Omniweb on Openstep 4.2, the splash screen says "Omniweb for OSX Server".  Interesting, no?

Plus, a lot of things in OSX are directly from NeXTstep.  The spinning beachball, for one.  I see that a lot.  :)

The head of Apple's operating system engineering, Avie Tevanian, was the lead programmer for Mach and NeXTstep.

I'm sure OSX will get better over time.  It's just that adding Classic and Carbon and Quartz and Aqua to NeXTstep added quite a bit of bloat.

Madan

Mon Mar 18 21:14:03 2002


OSX uses a lot of NeXT legacy code.  According to one of our developers, you can take a NeXT application, and if it doesn't do direct screen writes, you can recompile it EXACTLY.  NO CHANGES.  If you look at Cocoa Development, all the API codes begin with "NS".  Three guesses what NS stands for.

A lot <> most or even >25%.

Darwin was completely redone by Apple's people and just because it uses the same code syntax as NeXT doesn't mean very much.

Win 9x and Win 2k aren't that diff. in compilation and their architectures are like day and night.


The head of Apple's operating system engineering, Avie Tevanian, was the lead programmer for Mach and NeXTstep.

He's a glorified manager.

The team is all Apple. And how much practice has Apple's team had with NeXT? Minimal.


I'm sure OSX will get better over time.  It's just that adding Classic and Carbon and Quartz and Aqua to NeXTstep added quite a bit of bloat.

That's because OSX <> NeXT.

And if it is, you can bet your ass that NT is built on DOS.

M.

Jeremy Reimer

Mon Mar 18 22:09:03 2002


A lot <> most or even >25%.

Care to back up those numbers, Madan?


Darwin was completely redone by Apple's people and just because it uses the same code syntax as NeXT doesn't mean very much.

Actually, it means quite a lot.  The APIs are the same because the underlying structure is the same-- you don't re-engineer the exact same APIs from scratch!


Win 9x and Win 2k aren't that diff. in compilation and their architectures are like day and night.

But that's because NT was written from the ground up.  It defined the Win32 API spec.  Win95 then copied that as much as it could.

OSX was not written from the ground up.  It's based on NeXTstep, which was based on a Mach kernel.  Hello, there's still a Mach kernel in there! Hello!!


He's a glorified manager.

So?  He LED THE TEAM that wrote NeXTstep in the first place!


The team is all Apple. And how much practice has Apple's team had with NeXT? Minimal.

The team is not all Apple, when Apple bought NeXT all the NeXT engineers went with Avie!


That's because OSX <> NeXT.

They really are quite similar internally.


And if it is, you can bet your ass that NT is built on DOS.

No, that's complete bullshit.  NT was a ground-up rewrite.  OSX wasn't.  This is not rocket science.

Evil Merlin

Tue Mar 19 01:10:59 2002

I happen to have a NeXT cube here as well, lets see just how similar they are. My new mac will be here this week (I managed to get one for the buddy's kid and one for me as well).

Lets see just how similar MacOS X to NeXT then shall we.

I am willing to bet you've never looked at NeXT's folder structure have you Madan? If you did you would notice MacOS X's is very similar.

Harbinger

Tue Mar 19 04:26:20 2002

from Madan posted at 3:01 pm on Mar. 18, 2002

"When I said you I meant most responders. I was simply trying to answer anticipatory your response."

If this made any sense in the context of our discussion, I couldn't find it.  Please elaborate.

No, my point was never whether XP sold a lot or not. So I guess you're missing *my* point. .... But that was just an aside.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place?  The direct implication is that it is meant to support your argument, then you toss it away as "just an aside."

Bullshit. Look at my links in the Battlefront Sucks thread. prowlerguy, Venture will continue to bitch about how "Mac sucks" regardless of whether a Mac fan opens his/her mouth. Mac Achia is a great example of this. Why do fucktards like Venture go in there for trolling? Noone is forcing Mac news under his nose?

Oh yeah, 'cause he(and many Win users like him) are *assholes*.

Bullshit?  Why?  What have you stated above that disproves my theory that *most* so-called Windows users do not, in fact, hate Apple?  You state as a couter-argument a list of a few individuals whom you deem to be "assholes" -- then call my theory "bullshit."  Well, that's just bullshit all on its own.

When do you hear me *brag* about Mac?

1) I never said you did, therefore it's irrelevant to this conversaion.

2) I'm not keeping track of such things, since it's irrelevant to this conversation.  Please stop trying to obfuscate by distracting.

Please point a post listing this, that was made...hmmmmm in the last four months by me or any regular Mac Ars regular. Please, I WANT YOU TO TRY.

First off, does my experience have to be only limited to Ars?  Because I formed my opinions long before Ars (of even the 'net as we know it today) even existed.  The 'superior' attitude is something that's been impressed upon me since the 1980s.

But if you want some specific links ( :rolleyes: ), you could probably start with nibs.  He is of the opinion (though disproved) that NT is utter crap; conversely, he refers to OSX as "the one true OS" -- that to me leads me to believe that he's a bit loony.

I mean if you're going to into the absurd extreme, why shouldn't I?

Zealots exist on both sides, as has been said repeatedly.  However I don't believe that I'm going to an absurd extreme.  I'm commenting on some of the absurd behavior from a small but vocal minority of Mac owners that I've been exposed to for nearly 2 decades.  If you wish to dismiss that out of hand, I suppose that's your prerogative.  But then again, I recall some rather absurd behavior of your own when you first arrived at Ars.  You still seem to do some reading-between-the-lines and jump to conclusions quite often.

Please. Look at the list for "annoying Arsers" in other threads. 99% are Mac users. Nib isn't even half as bad as prowlerguy but noone mentions that email-bombing freak.

I was unaware of anyone email-bombing.  I find any kind of retribution in the 'computer wars' reprehensible.  However, I have run into several people who have had their property vandalized because they came up against a platform zealot (mostly Macs).  That stuff disturbs me to no end.

Or BEIGE vs. Venture? One wrote a book on Photoshop without knowing a damn thing about it, while trolling incessantly. The other is an invisible graphic artist at best that posts a couple times a week!

You have proof that Venture knows "not a damn thing about" Photoshop, even though he wrote a book on it and also taught classes?  That sounds rather closed-minded of you.  Just because you don't like the man or what he has to say doesn't give you the god-like ability to determine what he does and does not know.

The number of Winlots on BF are insane. I just love comments made by BFG:

BFG: "You can't play Q3A on Mac..."
Madan: "I play on an iFruit."
BFG: "No you can't...you can't get 60000 fps, therefore you can't play!"
Madan: "Then that character playing on XXX.XXX.XXX.XX server named "Madan" is just an amazing bot."
BFG: "Fuck you Maclot!"
Madan: ":rolleyes: Ok, jackass, let's play..."
BFG: "Uh, no...I can't."

:rolleyes:

Yeah, and don't forget that Macs had the GF3 first.  :rolleyes:


Get over it.

Get over what?

Get over yourself.

Madan

Tue Mar 19 13:23:31 2002

Jeremy:


Quote:  
A lot <> most or even >25%.


Care to back up those numbers, Madan?

Uhm, what fucking numbers? I said it didn't *necessarily* mean that. Where are YOUR numbers?


Quote:  
Darwin was completely redone by Apple's people and just because it uses the same code syntax as NeXT doesn't mean very much.


Actually, it means quite a lot.  The APIs are the same because the underlying structure is the same-- you don't re-engineer the exact same APIs from scratch!

No, no you don't. Show me some evidence that they're *exactly* the same.


Quote:  
He's a glorified manager.


So?  He LED THE TEAM that wrote NeXTstep in the first place!

So the fuck what? He contributed ideas from NeXT into OS X. I never denied this. What I *am* saying is that when it comes down to it, the development team is Apple's. In fact, much of OSX was done by teams in Israel and India that were hired *right before the construction of X*.


Quote:  
That's because OSX <> NeXT.


They really are quite similar internally.

Similar <> same. And that's been my fucking point from the beginning. In fact, <> similar doesn't even mean mostly similar.

The hardware is different and integration issues are huge with that!
Quartz is a big issue tying it with the *Nix backend. Which...hmmm...NeXT didn't fucking HAVE!
Or maybe we could talk about the fact that OS X has a Mac UI and that has effects on file structures that NeXT didn't!
Or the fact that they had to tether OS 9 to OS X in a way that NeXT obviously didn't have!


But fucking yeah, NeXT and X are almost twins. :rolleyes: I mean, *you* could probably get that all straightened out in a weekend, right Jeremy? :rolleyes:



Quote:  
And if it is, you can bet your ass that NT is built on DOS.


No, that's complete bullshit.  NT was a ground-up rewrite.  OSX wasn't.  This is not rocket science.

Sure NT is built off of DOS. DOS == NT just like NeXT == OS X. Perfectly sensical.

I'm not arguing this anymore. I've got work to do but I will say one last thing. If you honestly believe that Mac has had anywhere near as much experience with Nix based OSes as MS has with their downright *venerable* NT platform, that has been around LONGER and seen more use by more people(millions more ppl in support) and you're going to use that ridiculous assessment to rip OS X, be my guest. I see good things in X. We'll see which one of us is right in the long run. And this goes for all of you.

Merlin:


I am willing to bet you've never looked at NeXT's folder structure have you Madan? If you did you would notice MacOS X's is very similar.

? No , I have played with NeXT and, while I haven't installed a setup like Jeremy has, I know it's similar. The *degree of similarity* is what I'm arguing.

And if you can't understand that, that's your problem because I'm not explaining it again.


And lastly, Harbinger:


"When I said you I meant most responders. I was simply trying to answer anticipatory your response."

If this made any sense in the context of our discussion, I couldn't find it.  Please elaborate.

Read it again. You'll get it eventually.


Quote: No, my point was never whether XP sold a lot or not. So I guess you're missing *my* point. .... But that was just an aside.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place?  The direct implication is that it is meant to support your argument, then you toss it away as "just an aside."

Because it was just that: an aside. A playful stab at XP, which hasn't been as commercially successful as MS would have believed. Maybe if they removed that asinine activation and changed the UI....


Quote: Please point a post listing this, that was made...hmmmmm in the last four months by me or any regular Mac Ars regular. Please, I WANT YOU TO TRY.

First off, does my experience have to be only limited to Ars?  Because I formed my opinions long before Ars (of even the 'net as we know it today) even existed.  The 'superior' attitude is something that's been impressed upon me since the 1980s.

Oh fucking please. Get the fuck over it.

"Mommy, mommy! That bad man with a Mac laughed at my g33k maxhin3!"

:rolleyes:

So Win users act like assholes because a few Mac morons chided them almost twenty years ago? Fuck. talk about an asinine existence.


But if you want some specific links (  ), you could probably start with nibs.  He is of the opinion (though disproved) that NT is utter crap; conversely, he refers to OSX as "the one true OS" -- that to me leads me to believe that he's a bit loony.

Bullshit. Nibs hasn't said anything about Macs being faster. So stuff that crap.


Quote: I mean if you're going to into the absurd extreme, why shouldn't I?

Zealots exist on both sides, as has been said repeatedly.  However I don't believe that I'm going to an absurd extreme.  I'm commenting on some of the absurd behavior from a small but vocal minority of Mac owners that I've been exposed to for nearly 2 decades.  If you wish to dismiss that out of hand, I suppose that's your prerogative.  But then again, I recall some rather absurd behavior of your own when you first arrived at Ars.  You still seem to do some reading-between-the-lines and jump to conclusions quite often.

Screw you. Noone gave you license to be a sactimonious ass.


Quote: Please. Look at the list for "annoying Arsers" in other threads. 99% are Mac users. Nib isn't even half as bad as prowlerguy but noone mentions that email-bombing freak.

Bullshit. prowlerguy, seta, bfg, venture, echohead2, poptones, and the list goes on and on. The amount of *crap* they spew is amazing.  And why do they outnumber Mac users on Ars? Because there ARE MORE OF THEM. So what's the problem? Simple, I never seem to hear these assholes get called.


I was unaware of anyone email-bombing.  I find any kind of retribution in the 'computer wars' reprehensible.  However, I have run into several people who have had their property vandalized because they came up against a platform zealot (mostly Macs).  That stuff disturbs me to no end.

Please, :rolleyes: I had prowlerguy sending me career-ending threats. Don't give me this garbage about "Mac zealots".


Quote: Or BEIGE vs. Venture? One wrote a book on Photoshop without knowing a damn thing about it, while trolling incessantly. The other is an invisible graphic artist at best that posts a couple times a week!

You have proof that Venture knows "not a damn thing about" Photoshop, even though he wrote a book on it and also taught classes?

Actually yes. Every debate we've had about PS tells me that he wrote a book through downright miraculaty.


Quote: The number of Winlots on BF are insane. I just love comments made by BFG:

BFG: "You can't play Q3A on Mac..."
Madan: "I play on an iFruit."
BFG: "No you can't...you can't get 60000 fps, therefore you can't play!"
Madan: "Then that character playing on XXX.XXX.XXX.XX server named "Madan" is just an amazing bot."
BFG: "Fuck you Maclot!"
Madan: " Ok, jackass, let's play..."
BFG: "Uh, no...I can't."

What? Nothing to say about this? Happes all the time. Oh, but it's a Wintroll, so it's ok.


Quote: Get over it.

Get over what?

Get over yourself.

Howsabout you kis my a$$

M.

Riso

Tue Mar 19 15:23:03 2002

Sure NT is built off of DOS

No it isnt.
NT 3 was a rewrite which was supposed to be called OS/2 3.0.

And, the BSD kernel darwin is based off is already 25 years old.

You claim we all have no clue while it's you not knowing a damn thing.

Madan

Tue Mar 19 17:50:51 2002

You claim we all have no clue while it's you not knowing a damn thing.

Riso, if you'd buy yourself a brain, you'd figure out that I meant that neither DOS == NT *NOR* NeXT == X.

I set up a conditional of inclusivity. If you think NeXT == X, then NT == DOS.

But thanks for that keen observation. :rolleyes:

M.

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Tue Mar 19 18:04:07 2002

I set up a conditional of inclusivity. If you think NeXT == X, then NT == DOS.

Um, Madan.

DOS and NT share none of the same codebase or even design philosophies.  Next was a Darwin based system as is OSX.  There Genesis both lie upon the same lines.

Of course, this is just semantics from a topic that meanders from the original, but I think that the idea that OSX hasn't had the time to gain promenance as it hasn't had the time NT has had doesnt' address the problem of marketshare

:tongue:

Jeremy Reimer

Tue Mar 19 18:04:55 2002


Uhm, what fucking numbers? I said it didn't *necessarily* mean that. Where are YOUR numbers?

Um, YOU provided the "25%" figure.  You back it up.  


No, no you don't. Show me some evidence that they're *exactly* the same.

The evidence is excruciatingly clear:  Look up the Cocoa API's.  Notice how they all begin with "NS".  Notice that "Omniweb for OSX Server" runs on Openstep/x86 with a single recompile.  


So the fuck what? He contributed ideas from NeXT into OS X.

No, he contributed the code from NeXT into OSX.


I never denied this. What I *am* saying is that when it comes down to it, the development team is Apple's. In fact, much of OSX was done by teams in Israel and India that were hired *right before the construction of X*.

The kernel is Nextstep.  The core is Nextstep.  Quartz and Aqua (and Carbon) come from Apple.


Similar <> same. And that's been my fucking point from the beginning. In fact, <> similar doesn't even mean mostly similar.

I never said they were the same, only that they were very similar.  


The hardware is different and integration issues are huge with that!

Not really.  NeXTstep was designed to be extremely portable-- it ran on 680x0, 88000 (in test labs only), x86, and Sparc.  


Quartz is a big issue tying it with the *Nix backend. Which...hmmm...NeXT didn't fucking HAVE!

The core of Quartz is Display PDF.  NeXT had Display Postcript.  The two are actually quite similar, with Quartz adding advanced GDI features like transparency and anti-aliased text.


Or maybe we could talk about the fact that OS X has a Mac UI and that has effects on file structures that NeXT didn't!

The effects on file structures are minimal-- inside the directories are all BSD Unix, /etc, /bin, and so forth, with the "visible" directories merely links.  There was a neat article on how they solved the problem of Unix using / as a directory separator while Mac apps expected :, they just translate the characters on the fly.  At the core it is Unix.


Or the fact that they had to tether OS 9 to OS X in a way that NeXT obviously didn't have!

NeXT had Executor that allowed it to run Mac programs.  All Apple did was run a copy of OS9 in a virtual machine, which NeXT/Unix/OSX supports.


But fucking yeah, NeXT and X are almost twins.  I mean, *you* could probably get that all straightened out in a weekend, right Jeremy?  

I never said I could, nor would I ever say such a thing.


Sure NT is built off of DOS. DOS == NT just like NeXT == OS X. Perfectly sensical.

Bullshit.  THE CORE OF DOS IS THE DOS "KERNEL".  THE CORE OF NT IS THE NT KERNEL.  THE CORE OF OSX IS THE MACH/BSD KERNEL.  THE CORE OF NEXT IS THE MACH/BSD KERNEL.

But of course you knew that, didn't you?


I'm not arguing this anymore. I've got work to do but I will say one last thing. If you honestly believe that Mac has had anywhere near as much experience with Nix based OSes as MS has with their downright *venerable* NT platform, that has been around LONGER and seen more use by more people(millions more ppl in support) and you're going to use that ridiculous assessment to rip OS X, be my guest. I see good things in X. We'll see which one of us is right in the long run. And this goes for all of you.

I see good things in X as well, I bought the iBook because of it, remember?  

Are you even using OSX?

Madan

Tue Mar 19 18:13:14 2002

"even using OS X?"

<sarcasm>No, no I'm not. </sarcasm>

And yeah, ok, NeXT == OS X.

I don't give a shit anymore.

M.

Jeremy Reimer

Tue Mar 19 18:18:30 2002


"even using OS X?"

<sarcasm>No, no I'm not. </sarcasm>

Well, from your posts it seemed like you were happy with OS9.


And yeah, ok, NeXT == OS X.

They share the same core, yes.


I don't give a shit anymore.

Why did you give a shit in the first place?  It's not like NeXT was a bad OS, it was easily ten years ahead of its time, the kernel was the most advanced available that was still practical for real-world use (because of the BSD layer) and the NeXT Gui was very slick, and inspired things like the dock and the column-view browser.

The original project leader for Mach at CMU now works for Microsoft-- that gives you an idea of how valuable the OS research that led to NeXT and OSX was.

Harbinger

Tue Mar 19 18:49:26 2002

Read it again. You'll get it eventually.

In case you hadn't noticed it (and it's unlikely that you would), this is a perfect current example of a Mac user's condescending attitude toward a person who happens to be the user of another platform.

Besides that, your reply still had no meaning.  I could interpret it as a barb towards me insomuch as it was a rewording of my legitimate elaboration of part of my previous message: That you take things far too personally, and that I was trying to make sure there was no misrepresentation.  I.E: I was trying to spare your feelings, because I have seen you fly off the handle before.  Thanks for proving that it was wholly unnecessary. :rolleyes:

Oh fucking please. Get the fuck over it.

"Mommy, mommy! That bad man with a Mac laughed at my g33k maxhin3!"

So Win users act like assholes because a few Mac morons chided them almost twenty years ago? Fuck. talk about an asinine existence.

Talk about a lack of reading comprehension.  I'm talking about the attitude of a subset of Mac users that has been *perpetual* for nearly twenty years.  It's not your purported misrepresentation of someone being 'chided 20 years ago' -- it's an ongoing phenomena.  If it was something that happened long ago and then ended, it would have been forgotten.  

Please stop jumping to conclusions and trying to put words into others' mouths.

Bullshit. Nibs hasn't said anything about Macs being faster. So stuff that crap.

:confused:  Where did I say anything about nibs claiming Macs were faster?  Oh that's right, I didn't.  Here's my original text that you replied to:
He is of the opinion (though disproved) that NT is utter crap; conversely, he refers to OSX as "the one true OS"

I don't see anything in there about speed, do you?  Your reply is nonsensical and is a non-sequiter.

Again:
Please stop jumping to conclusions and trying to put words into others' mouths.

Screw you. Noone gave you license to be a sactimonious ass.

Pot. Kettle. Black as the ace of spades.

Please,  I had prowlerguy sending me career-ending threats. Don't give me this garbage about "Mac zealots".

What's with the rolleyes?  I said I was not aware of anyone emailbombing, and that was the truth.  

And "Don't give me this garbage about "Mac zealots" eh?  Why not?  I know of one person in particular whose house and car were vandalized by some Mac zealots because he didn't agree with them.  Why TF can't I mention this?  Because you don't wish to hear it?  Why can you complain about prowlerguy but I can't "give [you] this garbage about "Mac zealots"?  That sounds like a double-standard.

Actually yes. Every debate we've had about PS tells me that he wrote a book through downright miraculaty.

Well, forgive me if I don't take your word over his.

(some paraphrased  BFG argument) What? Nothing to say about this? Happes all the time. Oh, but it's a Wintroll, so it's ok.

No, I have nothing to say about it because it was a strawman; it had nothing to do with the conversation except to derail it.

Howsabout you kis my a$$

Howsabout you start using the appropriate recognized abbreviation of "with" -- it's w/, in case you were unaware. ;)

Riso

Wed Mar 20 11:55:05 2002

Time to put a worthy post on the frontpage.
Socrates

Fri Mar 22 02:06:50 2002

Apple=wannabe MSFT

And, they act just like em, but worse.  Do they support ATTO, Softraid, other hardware/software makers?  No, so each os release, each time they get the codes the day the os goes out, and then have to wait develop for the final code, they are screwed a little more.

ATTO is going through that with Os X, and XP, at the same time.  Results?  Drivers suck, and support sucks, until they get some kind of drivers written for both.  
Softraid is a  GREAT raid utility.

Allows you to boot from raid, define a raid array, in software, define it as a boot array, copy the os from another disk, onto the array, and then have the benefits of the array.

Doesn't work like that with windows.  ALL windows raid software sucks resulting in long setup times, and, you can't just copy a working os from a single disk on to an array in windows, and have it work, as a general rule.

So far, thanks to apple, that raid functionality is gone, and apple, after failing to steal softraid, now has their own, raid software, ala MSFT 2000.
Can't boot from an array, and, that is a big deal, and advantage.

I guess for me right now, it's just the money.  I've got a very expensive mac, sitting here, doing nothing, since it's just really slow, compared to a 1.4 ghz athlon.

I can't justify springing for a new cpu, which would still only get it into the 500 mhz range, and, the chipset in the machine sucks eggs, limiting to 75 mb/sec.

Grackle chipset.

Not to mention, that after promising that the g3 would be supported in OS X, apple has failed to do so.

By the way, my observations are, despite equal video cards, and a faster hard drive setup, at one time, in the mac, it just doesn't have enough processor speed to play Unreal or similar games, at anything close to a fast athlon processor.

gs

Riso

Fri Mar 22 10:25:40 2002

Yes, as you can see from the C'T Mac/Pc test, the G4's FPU stinks.
Evil Merlin

Fri Mar 22 12:51:18 2002

Is there ANY part of a Mac that does not stink?

Me thinks mayhap only the gigabit ethernet and firewire port...