159 réponses à ce sujet

[Seifz]

wantDA2now wrote...

Porsche! If some day I buy a Porsche and find has the same components than a Toyota Yaris I'll get upset. And more if that Toyota surpases my car in acceleration and max. speed. Well, at least I'll have a good looking car...

Macs don't even have the look going for them anymore.  The new *books and whatnot are rather bland and their towers are just hideous.  I much prefer my Lian Li case!

Anyway, I see no reason to support Apple in anything that they do.  They're an evil company, worse in practice than even Microsoft.  If you want to support an alternative platform to Windows, support Linux.

[Celticon]

Lyssistr wrote...

Celticon wrote...

If you're using a Mac now, you probably have Leopard or Snow Leopard. You can run Windows XP, Vista, and 7 via bootcamp, while Snow Leopard has additional support for the 64-bit versions.

Yes, however I don't plan to pay for a windows license to play on my laptop. To play a PC only game, I use my desktop.

Anyhow, at this point it's likely I won't be purchasing DA2 anyhow so not a huge loss if they don't make a native port.

My current computer is a Macbook Pro, 13".

I've played DA:O via bootcamp on 32 bit XP and currently am running it on 7-64. I'm not sure about performance on the OS X version, but there is one undeniable fact - the OS X version is behind in DLC releases and patch support. Awakening is still unavailable for OS X (though if you go with the opinion of the people who hated DAA, then perhaps it's no loss for you, same goes for the DLCs).

I like using OS X for its easy interface and reliability, so  I do all work, graphics and imaging related tasks on my OS X partition. But I can't run CAD applications or most games for that matter, so that's why I've turned to bootcamp.

But if you use your PC desktop for PC exclusives, why wouldn't you plan on doing the same for DA2?

[Lyssistr]

Celticon wrote...

But if you use your PC desktop for PC exclusives, why wouldn't you plan on doing the same for DA2?

 Native Mac port of good quality means two things

- mac executable is top quality and gets DLC+expansions on time,  not like half a year later.
- when the game gets on Steam, you can play it on any machine you like, especially if cloud saves are supported (yes this can happen with a wined port as well, however practice so far has shown it's much easier to happen when no porting company is involved).

 Much nicer to pick your laptop and continue from where you stopped on your desktop

Modifié par Lyssistr, 23 août 2010 - 12:07 .

[Vizkos]

Lyssistr wrote...

Celticon wrote...

But if you use your PC desktop for PC exclusives, why wouldn't you plan on doing the same for DA2?

 Native Mac port of good quality means two things

- mac executable is top quality and gets DLC+expansions on time,  not like half a year later.
- when the game gets on Steam, you can play it on any machine you like, especially if cloud saves are supported (yes this can happen with a wined port as well, however practice so far has shown it's much easier to happen when no porting company is involved).

 Much nicer to pick your laptop and continue from where you stopped on your desktop

You "lol" at my point that Macs are more hardware demanding, but its true.  Do your resarch.  Stellar example here:
http://us.blizzard.c...42&locale=en_US

Mac requires a video card that is 2 generations above PC and 1GB more ram.  Do your research before you attempt to make a mockery of me.

Also, you are assuming Bioware #1 wants to move into the Mac market and views it as good capital, and #2 they will integrate into Steam.  You are basically asking them to change thier policy, which they aren't going to do.

[Seifz]

Prosthetics511 wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Celticon wrote...

But if you use your PC desktop for PC exclusives, why wouldn't you plan on doing the same for DA2?

 Native Mac port of good quality means two things

- mac executable is top quality and gets DLC+expansions on time,  not like half a year later.
- when the game gets on Steam, you can play it on any machine you like, especially if cloud saves are supported (yes this can happen with a wined port as well, however practice so far has shown it's much easier to happen when no porting company is involved).

 Much nicer to pick your laptop and continue from where you stopped on your desktop

You "lol" at my point that Macs are more hardware demanding, but its true.  Do your resarch.  Stellar example here:
http://us.blizzard.c...42&locale=en_US

Mac requires a video card that is 2 generations above PC and 1GB more ram.  Do your research before you attempt to make a mockery of me.

You can't really pick one game and use it to demonstrate that "Macs are more hardware demanding".  If you actually look at the hardware listed there, you'll note that it's the same.  The same processor type, video cards from the same manufacturers, the same type of RAM.  The differences between a Windows-based PC and a MacOS X-based PC are very few indeed.  The idea that one is more "hardware demanding" is absurd.

The largest difference between the two operating systems, in terms of gaming, is that MacOS X doesn't support DirectX.  So, the developers have to code a separate openGL path if they want to create a native MacOS port.  There are other differences to account for (e.g. networking), but those are less difficult.  The openGL path part is huge!  Sadly, Linux would require the same effort.

Also, you are assuming Bioware #1 wants to move into the Mac market and views it as good capital, and #2 they will integrate into Steam.  You are basically asking them to change thier policy, which they aren't going to do.

It's not really up to BioWare.  If you want a MacOS port (or a Linux port!), you should be bugging EA.  They decide whether BioWare gets the resources to create a MacOS (or Linux!) port.  At least, that was true when everyone was begging for a MacOS port of DA:O.

BioWare has, in the past, supported non-Windows platforms.  Neverwinter Nights had an almost complete Linux client!  It couldn't play movies and it was really just a quick SDL implementation, but it did run natively and it looked great.  It's too bad that we had to buy some coasters to get the data files legally.  Perhaps with EA on board they'll be able to offer the game data for download through the EA client.  

Anyway, there's plenty of reason to not like Apple and not use their products.  That's why I would support a Linux client instead.  Indeed, I would absolutely buy the game both for Windows and for Linux if they released two native (and fully featured!) versions!

[Lyssistr]

Prosthetics511 wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Celticon wrote...

But if you use your PC desktop for PC exclusives, why wouldn't you plan on doing the same for DA2?

 Native Mac port of good quality means two things

- mac executable is top quality and gets DLC+expansions on time,  not like half a year later.
- when the game gets on Steam, you can play it on any machine you like, especially if cloud saves are supported (yes this can happen with a wined port as well, however practice so far has shown it's much easier to happen when no porting company is involved).

 Much nicer to pick your laptop and continue from where you stopped on your desktop

You "lol" at my point that Macs are more hardware demanding, but its true.  Do your resarch.  Stellar example here:
http://us.blizzard.c...42&locale=en_US

Mac requires a video card that is 2 generations above PC and 1GB more ram.  Do your research before you attempt to make a mockery of me.

Not that 1 game is that huge a sample but read the "research" you post, 8600M is a mobile card and is not two generations up from 6600, the reason they mentioned 8600M specifically instead of any card that does the job is that 8600M is used in '08 macbook pros. The only difference in requirements is 1.5gb (7/Vista) vs 2gb ram, which could well be because 8600M is mobile.

So after that "stelar" research, I still lol.

Also, you are assuming Bioware #1 wants to move into the Mac market and views it as good capital, and #2 they will integrate into Steam.  You are basically asking them to change thier policy, which they aren't going to do.

They could also do their own store, like Blizzard, where you buy the game once, it works on macs & pcs.

[Lyssistr]

Seifz wrote...

BioWare has, in the past, supported non-Windows platforms.

Usually, their mac ports were done by a porting company and were not native, in house, ports. This affects pricing, quality and you also don't have your game for both PC&mac. That's why I asked for an in house, native, port.

[Vizkos]

Lyssistr wrote...

Prosthetics511 wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Celticon wrote...

But if you use your PC desktop for PC exclusives, why wouldn't you plan on doing the same for DA2?

 Native Mac port of good quality means two things

- mac executable is top quality and gets DLC+expansions on time,  not like half a year later.
- when the game gets on Steam, you can play it on any machine you like, especially if cloud saves are supported (yes this can happen with a wined port as well, however practice so far has shown it's much easier to happen when no porting company is involved).

 Much nicer to pick your laptop and continue from where you stopped on your desktop

You "lol" at my point that Macs are more hardware demanding, but its true.  Do your resarch.  Stellar example here:
http://us.blizzard.c...42&locale=en_US

Mac requires a video card that is 2 generations above PC and 1GB more ram.  Do your research before you attempt to make a mockery of me.

Not that 1 game is that huge a sample but read the "research" you post, 8600M is a mobile card and is not two generations up from 6600, the reason they mentioned 8600M specifically instead of any card that does the job is that 8600M is used in '08 macbook pros. The only difference in requirements is 1.5gb (7/Vista) vs 2gb ram, which could well be because 8600M is mobile.

So after that "stelar" research, I still lol.

Also, you are assuming Bioware #1 wants to move into the Mac market and views it as good capital, and #2 they will integrate into Steam.  You are basically asking them to change thier policy, which they aren't going to do.

They could also do their own store, like Blizzard, where you buy the game once, it works on macs & pcs.

8600M is still classified as 2 generations above, becuase not only is the power of an 8600 (minus downclocking) within a laptop, but it also has several processor enhancements over previous video cards, whether or not it is mobile or not.  It may be only one example, but thats basically all you need to make a point when there are only like 3 big games out for the Mac.


By doing their own store you are still assuming they even want to code for the Mac not to mention again you want them to establish/change company policy.  You are making alot of demands for very little ground as to why it would be worth the spent capital.  Not to mention you are not making the base case for yourself to even be taken seriously.

[Lyssistr]

Prosthetics511 wrote...

8600M is still classified as 2 generations above, becuase not only is the power of an 8600 (minus downclocking) within a laptop, but it also has several processor enhancements over previous video cards, whether or not it is mobile or not.  It may be only one example, but thats basically all you need to make a point when there are only like 3 big games out for the Mac.

 What you say doesn't make sense, 8600M is not on par with 8600, no mobile chipset is on par with the corresponding desktop chipsets. Comparing a mobile card to a desktop card to say it needs a card 2 gens higher is quite an unsound way of thinking. The point is not when the card was developed, They put 8600M to note from which cards and on SC II is playable on macbook pro's. iMacs never had 6600, so they'd never put a card there that no apple computer ever used and tbh this is meaningless, you didn't even read the page you linked and you can keep pulling such "arguments" out of the thin air.

The amount of games is also irrelevant, it's that porting the engine requires time & money. Some companies do it well and get a good return for doing it, others don't do it so well and they don't get return.

 What you're effectively saying is that OpenGL (difference between DX win games & mac games) pumps up requirements for games, I hope you understand it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

By doing their own store you are still assuming they even want to code for the Mac not to mention again you want them to establish/change company policy.  You are making alot of demands for very little ground as to why it would be worth the spent capital.  Not to mention you are not making the base case for yourself to even be taken seriously.

Well, you may think whatever you like for the "case" I'm making, Blizz & Valve do it successfully and considering their success, it's hard to take you seriously. In any case, since DA2 looks consolized, I'm not too interested anymore about a mac port tbh.

[Seifz]

Lyssistr wrote...

Seifz wrote...

BioWare has, in the past, supported non-Windows platforms.

Usually, their mac ports were done by a porting company and were not native, in house, ports. This affects pricing, quality and you also don't have your game for both PC&mac. That's why I asked for an in house, native, port.

I was thinking about their native Linux port of NWN.  The Linux client never supported the in-game movies without some third-party modifications, but it was otherwise exactly like playing in Windows.  

[Lyssistr]

Seifz wrote...

I was thinking about their native Linux port of NWN.  The Linux client never supported the in-game movies without some third-party modifications, but it was otherwise exactly like playing in Windows.  

 I haven't tried the Linux NWN port, so I can't really comment on that, was it an in-house port?

[Seifz]

Lyssistr wrote...

Seifz wrote...

I was thinking about their native Linux port of NWN.  The Linux client never supported the in-game movies without some third-party modifications, but it was otherwise exactly like playing in Windows.  

 I haven't tried the Linux NWN port, so I can't really comment on that, was it an in-house port?

Yeah.  Here's some Wikipedia, from the Neverwinter Nights article.

"Infogrames released Neverwinter Nights for Windows on June 18, 2002. BioWare released the freely downloadable Linux Client in June 2003 (purchase of game still required).[2] MacSoft released a Mac OS X port in August 2003."

Everything worked, too.  You could use any expansions, mods, etc.  It was (almost) perfect.

EDIT:  It looks like Wikipedia contradicts itself.  The release dates for Linux and Mac are listed as 2002 on the sidebar of the same article.  I don't know the correct release date.  I do know that I used to play NWN in Linux with mod-heavy persistant worlds and everything worked.  Indeed, I got better performance in Linux than I did in Windows.  If only the movies worked without mods!

Modifié par Seifz, 23 août 2010 - 05:25 .

[AuraofMana]

I have this reliable tool that I can open type A jars with and type A jars are meant to be opened with this reliable tool. In fact, they even release additional features to type A jars that I can add to, and still open with my reliable tool. About 90% of the world use this reliable tool and thus it gets more feedback and the jar company has more experience and can devote all its resources to making type A jars.

However, some hipsters somewhere want to use their own "new, shinier looking, but more expensive with proprietary hardware" unreliable tool. While it can open type A jars by switching the tool to another mode, those hipsters are not satisfied because they are too cool for type A jars. Instead, they want the jar company to devote a ton of resources and time to make type B jars which should intrinsically support their version of tools. While only 10% of the people use this type of tools to open jars that were created by another company, they affirm that their demands and reasons are grounded and refused to use the already working alternative. In addition, they based their enitre logic on the assumption that the sales number of the other jar company would apply to this company as well. Some of these hipsters, who probably have no knowledge about jar making or anything related, talk about jar making as if they understand how much time, effort, and funds are required to make type B jars in addition to type A jars. Finally, they think their tools are better despite the fact that anyone with half a brain knows otherwise.

P.S., apparently their tools supposedly looks better on the outside because that's all that matters.

Maybe someone should have purchased the most used tools that the jars were developed to be used by instead of complaining about how they are special and another type of jars should be developed just for their dwindling, wretched population that uses this other type of tools that suck.

Modifié par AuraofMana, 23 août 2010 - 05:35 .

[Anarya]

AuraofMana wrote...

I have this reliable tool that I can open type A jars with and type A jars are meant to be opened with this reliable tool. In fact, they even release additional features to type A jars that I can add to, and still open with my reliable tool. About 90% of the world use this reliable tool and thus it gets more feedback and the jar company has more experience and can devote all its resources to making type A jars.
However, some hipsters somewhere wants to use their own "new, shinier looking, but more expensive with proprietary hardware" unreliable tool. While it can open type A jars by switching the tool to another mode, those hipsters are not satisfied because they are too cool for type A jars. Instead, they want the jar company to devote a ton of resources and time to make type B jars which should intrinsically support their version of tools. While only 10% of the people use this type of tools to open jars that were created by another company, they affirm that their demands and reasons are grounded and refused to use the already working alternative. In addition, they based their enitre logic on the assumption that the sales number of the other jar company would apply to this company as well. Some of these hipsters, who probably has no knowledge about jar making or anything related, talks about jar making as if they understand how much time, effort, and funds are required to make type B jars in addition to type A jars. Finally, they think their tools are better despite the fact that anyone with half a brain knows otherwise.
Also, their tools supposedly looks better on the outside because that's all that matters.

Maybe someone should have purchased the most used tools that the jars were developed to be used by instead of complaining about how they are special and another type of jars should be developed just for their dwindling, wretched population that uses this other type of tools that suck.

Except the hipster tool is more reliable than the original one. But it costs way more. *shrug*

[AuraofMana]

Anarya wrote...

Except the hipster tool is more reliable than the original one. But it costs way more. *shrug*

Probably because the hipster tool is developed with proprietary hardware while the other tools allow you to combine and use a wide range of hardware. It's more difficult to fine tune a tool when that many options are available, but at least that type of tools have these options available.
In addition, building that type of tools to open bigger and better jars is also less expensive than hipster tools. For one, I've never heard of "power jar-opening tool" being a hipster tool.
Finally, just because hipsters, who are already somewhat unevolved and unintelligent, fail to understand how to use the reliable tool because they are so used to the hipster tool-making company building everything for them doesn't mean that the reliable tool is inferior. It just means that the hipsters are retarded and should RTFM before attempting to do anything with the reliable tool.

[Seifz]

Eh, the hardware in a Mac is almost identical to the hardware in any other PC. They use EFI instead of the traditional BIOS, which causes a bit of trouble, but it's not really a big deal.



I strongly disagree with the claim that MacOS X is in any way more reliable than Windows 7, though.

[Massman123]

zingy 1914 wrote...

im disappointed in DAO for the mac! not even any dlc for it and yet they release it on all other platforms, that is cyber racism!!

Stone Prisoner, RtO and Darkspawn Chronicles was released for mac...

[Anarya]

Seifz wrote...

Eh, the hardware in a Mac is almost identical to the hardware in any other PC. They use EFI instead of the traditional BIOS, which causes a bit of trouble, but it's not really a big deal.

I strongly disagree with the claim that MacOS X is in any way more reliable than Windows 7, though.

I use both and found them pretty much equally stable. OSX compared to previous iterations of Windows however...

[Lyssistr]

Anarya wrote...

AuraofMana wrote...

I have this reliable tool that I can open type A jars with and type A jars are meant to be opened with this reliable tool. In fact, they even release additional features to type A jars that I can add to, and still open with my reliable tool. About 90% of the world use this reliable tool and thus it gets more feedback and the jar company has more experience and can devote all its resources to making type A jars.
However, some hipsters somewhere wants to use their own "new, shinier looking, but more expensive with proprietary hardware" unreliable tool. While it can open type A jars by switching the tool to another mode, those hipsters are not satisfied because they are too cool for type A jars. Instead, they want the jar company to devote a ton of resources and time to make type B jars which should intrinsically support their version of tools. While only 10% of the people use this type of tools to open jars that were created by another company, they affirm that their demands and reasons are grounded and refused to use the already working alternative. In addition, they based their enitre logic on the assumption that the sales number of the other jar company would apply to this company as well. Some of these hipsters, who probably has no knowledge about jar making or anything related, talks about jar making as if they understand how much time, effort, and funds are required to make type B jars in addition to type A jars. Finally, they think their tools are better despite the fact that anyone with half a brain knows otherwise.
Also, their tools supposedly looks better on the outside because that's all that matters.

Maybe someone should have purchased the most used tools that the jars were developed to be used by instead of complaining about how they are special and another type of jars should be developed just for their dwindling, wretched population that uses this other type of tools that suck.

Except the hipster tool is more reliable than the original one. But it costs way more. *shrug*

@auraofmana

No comments on the jar theory, it was way too entertaining to read. the mac jar is probably the best jar for professional use, now if it has a shorter gaming catalogue, it's a quite minor concern.

Btw apply your jar theory to why apple has the biggest part of the pie, by far, in expensive computers and it may even start to make sense.

@Anarya

 Actually it doesn't cost much more, if you "make" a laptop with the same hardware, same weight, same battery life etc, and look for reliable firms (sony, apple etc) prices are pretty close, at least they were when I did my market search a couple of years ago. Usually the only thing that can make a mac a bad deal is when apple hasn't upgraded a product line for quite awhile.

[bzombo]

i don't think it is worthwhile cost-wise to create a mac port. blizzard and valve do it, but that doesn't mean it's right for bioware/ea. do we really know the success of valve and blizzard on macs? i sure don't, but i doubt it's significant.

[Lyssistr]

Anarya wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Eh, the hardware in a Mac is almost identical to the hardware in any other PC. They use EFI instead of the traditional BIOS, which causes a bit of trouble, but it's not really a big deal.

I strongly disagree with the claim that MacOS X is in any way more reliable than Windows 7, though.

I use both and found them pretty much equally stable. OSX compared to previous iterations of Windows however...

 OS X had an advantage (and more features) over any previous windows version, but win7 is on par with snow leopard. Still, OS X has a couple of plusses imo but their importance is minor for most users.

 Software is pretty much on par as well with some tools being better in the windows side and some better on the mac side, most applications being available to both platforms.

 I'd say after win7 both platforms are about on par and it's a matter of taste what to pick. Personally, I find the unix shell and keynote too much of a convenience but someone else may find working on visual studio the convenience he wants more, if Microsoft had a unix shell pre-installed on all win7 versions (not just ultimate) and the VS license for free use had a little wider scope, I'd be tempted to use win7 on my macbook pro.
 
 

Modifié par Lyssistr, 23 août 2010 - 06:07 .

[Lyssistr]

bzombo wrote...

i don't think it is worthwhile cost-wise to create a mac port. blizzard and valve do it, but that doesn't mean it's right for bioware/ea. do we really know the success of valve and blizzard on macs? i sure don't, but i doubt it's significant.

 Yes it was, I don't have time to do the link digging right now but Steam statistics showed it was well worth it, Blizzard hasn't published statistics but mac is a tier 1 platform for them and they find it worthy.

 There also other studies that point out what mac games need the following to be successful (again, don't have time to dig links now, search e.g. kotaku where the piecharts were also published)

- concurrent release with PC version
- native, in house mac port
- full support, same date release for DLC, expansions
- same pricing

when these 4 points were met, companies generated profits.

I may also add, from personal experience, paying for the game, not a mac/pc version of it, like it happens with Blizzard games and mac games on steam.

 It may not be worth it for Bioware/EA if they keep on doing what they've done, releasing terribad ports months after win release, with nearly no support and using wine/cedega wrappers. I can't see a reason why they should fail where others have succeeded if they adopt the correct business model.

Modifié par Lyssistr, 23 août 2010 - 06:17 .

[Seifz]

Lyssistr wrote...

Anarya wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Eh, the hardware in a Mac is almost identical to the hardware in any other PC. They use EFI instead of the traditional BIOS, which causes a bit of trouble, but it's not really a big deal.

I strongly disagree with the claim that MacOS X is in any way more reliable than Windows 7, though.

I use both and found them pretty much equally stable. OSX compared to previous iterations of Windows however...

OS X had an advantage (and more features) over any previous windows version, but win7 is on par with snow leopard. Still, OS X has a couple of plusses imo but their importance is minor for most users.

Eh, Windows 7 is better than OS X.  I'm not going to make an argument from the usability or interface perspective because those are very subjective.  However, the underlying technology in Windows 7 surpasses anything that Apple has to offer at the moment.  MacOS has some nifty tricks, though (e.g. extra multimedia hooks).

I'd say after win7 both platforms are about on par and it's a matter of taste what to pick. Personally, I find the unix shell and keynote too much of a convenience but someone else may find working on visual studio the convenience he wants more, if Microsoft had a unix shell pre-installed on all win7 versions (not just ultimate) and the VS license for free use had a little wider scope, I'd be tempted to use win7 on my macbook pro.

Windows is easily the worst of the three platforms for hobbyist development.  The free version of Visual Studio is quite lacking in features (you can't even create native 64-bit binaries!) and the new Power Shell can't really compare with Bash.  Then again, I might just be more comfortable with Bash because I've been using it for so long.  It's hard to say.

Still, Linux is far better than either of the other two platforms for development.  There's a reason that most commercial vendors use the GNU toolchain internally when they need to compile something (Eclipse, Xilinx, Altera, etc.).

More on topic, you can't just claim that a model that works for Blizzard will also work for BioWare.  The two companies probably have a very different internal structure, vision, etc.  Personally, I'd prefer BioWare to spend more zots on making a fantastic PC game.  Creating a MacOS version takes some of those zots away!

[bzombo]

Lyssistr wrote...

bzombo wrote...

i don't think it is worthwhile cost-wise to create a mac port. blizzard and valve do it, but that doesn't mean it's right for bioware/ea. do we really know the success of valve and blizzard on macs? i sure don't, but i doubt it's significant.

 Yes it was, I don't have time to do the link digging right now but Steam statistics showed it was well worth it, Blizzard hasn't published statistics but mac is a tier 1 platform for them and they find it worthy.

 There also other studies that point out what mac games need the following to be successful (again, don't have time to dig links now, search e.g. kotaku where the piecharts were also published)

- concurrent release with PC version
- native, in house mac port
- full support, same date release for DLC, expansions
- same pricing

when these 4 points were met, companies generated profits.

I may also add, from personal experience, paying for the game, not a mac/pc version of it, like it happens with Blizzard games and mac games on steam.

 It may not be worth it for Bioware/EA if they keep on doing what they've done, releasing terribad ports months after win release, with nearly no support and using wine/cedega wrappers. I can't see a reason why they should fail where others have succeeded if they adopt the correct business model.

maybe the costs were such that they didn't lose money, but i doubt it is very profitable. the number of sales vs the development costs seems to make it a tough business model. i'm sure if ea thought they could make any kind of profit on it they'd have bioware do it. as things are, it seems the cider version is all that makes sense for them.

[AuraofMana]

Lyssistr wrote...
@auraofmana

No comments on the jar theory, it was way too entertaining to read. the mac jar is probably the best jar for professional use, now if it has a shorter gaming catalogue, it's a quite minor concern.

Btw apply your jar theory to why apple has the biggest part of the pie, by far, in expensive computers and it may even start to make sense.

I have never heard of Mac's being sold more in expensive portions of computer sales. Even if it does it's probably because Mac's are overpriced. A 15-inch macbook pro, for example, prices around 1799 (so 1800). I could get a gaming laptop that can pretty much max most games out right now for the same price, if not lower. If that's not overpriced I don't know what is.

Lyssistr wrote...
 OS X had an advantage (and more features) over any previous windows
version, but win7 is on par with snow leopard. Still, OS X has a couple
of plusses imo but their importance is minor for most users.

Software is pretty much on par as well with some tools being better in
the windows side and some better on the mac side, most applications
being available to both platforms.

 I'd say after win7 both
platforms are about on par and it's a matter of taste what to pick.
Personally, I find the unix shell and keynote too much of a convenience
but someone else may find working on visual studio the convenience he
wants more, if Microsoft had a unix shell pre-installed on all win7
versions (not just ultimate) and the VS license for free use had a
little wider scope, I'd be tempted to use win7 on my macbook pro.

I am not buying this "previous Windows blew, especially Vista".  I've been using Windows since 95, and I've never had a problem with any of them, even Vista. People that complain about Vista being terrible are just people who didn't RTFM. Since the masses are terrible at anything that can be answered by Googling, this whole thing turned into a meme and now people believe it as if it was true. This is how rumor works.
One of my roommates, who is an art major, uses a Mac (what a surprise there). I've tried it and found it to be subpar to Windows or even Linux. If I want to code with a Unix command line, I'll boot up Linux. If I want to code anything game-related (I am actually going for a Game Design major with Programming focus, so I actually do this) I'll run up VS, which is the best IDE I've ever seen for both C++ and C#.
And I don't buy this "if you do art, you should get a Mac" either. Most softwares that artists use are on Windows as well, and I would argue that since the price of computer hardware is not as expensive as the ones on Mac's (because they are proprietary), Windows is a better choice.

While you can't obtain anything beyond VS Express, you can still always download VS Express (although it is lacking in some key features as said above).  In addition, Windows has its own shell command, not to mention you can easily install a Unix extension to it via Cygwin. You can also pretty much have every single Unix headers for C on Windows to be used with VS as well.  Of course, I still prefer Unix command line over whatever Windows has to offer.

And, let's assume Mac is as good as Windows. The fact that it is more expensive and the fact that you cannot build your own computer from scratch really kills it for me. I am sure a significant amount of video game enthusiasts build their own computer from scratch. There's a joy in that, not to mention you get to handpick your own hardware so you know exactly what is going in your rig, and you actually get a wide range of choices. Mac's cannot do this, and this is why if you are into serious gaming, you should just get Windows. This has a practical side to it, not just OS wars.
Comparing GUI's is also pointless. It's not  hard to download a new GUI. You can't judge something because what it initially has out of the box. If so, Linux would be ****ty because most of the good stuff are offered in updates and additional downloads.

Modifié par AuraofMana, 23 août 2010 - 07:02 .