159 réponses à ce sujet

[Lyssistr]

Seifz wrote...
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).

 win7 is not better, they're on par, I could list reasons which still give OS X an edge but I feel these depend on the user. You talk about hooks, but you have to consider that this is from the developer perspective and more specifically from the developer who makes specific applications.

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.

Visual studio wins in terms of interface & usability, the free version is just that, a free version but it's still quite good for it's price.

In any case you can install bash itself with Cygwin but MS's shell is not bad at all imo - especially considering it's their first unix shell since Xenix.

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.).

I haven't used the others, but eclipse is cross platform, so I don't think you can speak of a Linux advantage here. Gnu tools are good but they are also free and that's a thing to consider when you're saying why people use them, especially internally. In many cases people do allot of development using free tools and when they get more funding for their project, then they switch to Ms/Visual Studio.

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!

They don't have to be the same everywhere, Bio can just copy the mac porting part.

Anyhow, this is interesting but it's getting quite technical, I'm happy to continue this via PMs as I think things like Visual Studio vs Eclipse, or bash vs MS's shell are a little off topic.

[Lyssistr]

bzombo wrote...

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.

nope, they had profit. EA may think what it thinks but Blizz & Valve prove the opposite, EA has a deal with the company that makes cedega who is famous for their crap ports. Dig the articles in kotaku and elsewhere, they're quite analytic in terms of sales per platform, costs to port etc.

[Lyssistr]

[quote]AuraofMana wrote...

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.
[quote]

As I said, computer with same weight, same battery life, same features and all that, "a gaming laptop" is a pretty generic thing.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Vista had a huge memory footprint, also they were quite buggy at launch. 

[quote]
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#.
[/quote]

how exactly did you find it subpar? I mean if anything from the user's perspective everything is simpler.

MS Visual Studio is the best development tool since '99, said it in a previous post of mine, agree on that.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Ask an artist about that, I haven't ever used art software, I mean I'm happy to talk about OS differences on subjects I know, but art software calls for an artist to discuss it.

The piece of software that made an impact on my choice is keynote tbh, which is miles ahead powerpoint and the openoffice one.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

The reason to buy a mac, is if it pretty identical to the computer you would build from scratch. My laptop was purchased for professional work and hardware specs/weight/battery life were the best around, I'm sure new models in that line keep offering advantages. I should also mention that mac resale values are higher than PC and also tend to scale better. Keep in mind that macs are not gaming machines, they're not alienware, they're optimized around different features but they can play games on pretty decent settings.

If a mac doesn't have what you are looking for, obviously you're better off to make your own pc/lap.

Also GUIs & usability are important. I won't jump into discussing Linux, I had Linux from the old slackware days till about '04 as my *main* OS. I even had coded kernel modules, after that I have it in a VM. I don't like what it offers for personal reasons, but it's a matter of personal taste. Again, I'm happy to take this to PMs since Linux Guis, which dev studio is best etc, are a little off topic

[Seifz]

Lyssistr wrote...

Seifz wrote...
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).

 win7 is not better, they're on par, I could list reasons which still give OS X an edge but I feel these depend on the user. You talk about hooks, but you have to consider that this is from the developer perspective and more specifically from the developer who makes specific applications.

I specifically said that I wasn't going to talk about the interface or usability and referenced the underlying technology.

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.

Visual studio wins in terms of interface & usability, the free version is just that, a free version but it's still quite good for it's price.

Peronsally, I absolutely hate the Visual Studio interface and I often wish bad things would happen to whoever designed it.  Of course, interfaces are entirely subjective.  I use Eclipse when I'm forced to develop in Windows but I'm most comfortable with a Bash shell and Vim.  To each his own.

Regardless, Windows is the only platform of the three that doesn't have a feature-rich toolchain and IDE for free.  I'm sorry, but lacking a 64-bit compiler is a dealbreaker.  I'm using a 64-bit operating system on my 64-bit processor and you're forcing me to compile 32-bit binaries or pay for a professional license?  No, thanks.

In any case you can install bash itself with Cygwin but MS's shell is not bad at all imo - especially considering it's their first unix shell since Xenix.

It's not a Unix shell.  Unix is an operating system.  Many shells run on Unix and Unix-like operating systems, including sh, bash, tcsh, ksh, and zsh.  As far as I know, Power Shell does not run on any Unix operating systems.  Indeed, it is built in the .NET framework and has its own scripting language that is unique from any *sh languages.

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.).

I haven't used the others, but eclipse is cross platform, so I don't think you can speak of a Linux advantage here. Gnu tools are good but they are also free and that's a thing to consider when you're saying why people use them, especially internally. In many cases people do allot of development using free tools and when they get more funding for their project, then they switch to Ms/Visual Studio.

I seriously doubt that you have any evidence to back up that claim.  The GNU toolchain is free, but it's developed by a very large community and funded by many, many giants in the computing world including Red Hat, AMD, IBM, and Intel.  It's not some hobbyist project that people use because they can't afford something better.  It's the standard compiler for pretty much everything.

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!

They don't have to be the same everywhere, Bio can just copy the mac porting part.

That's not how it works.  You can't just take a piece from one business and plant it into another business and expect everything to just work.

[Lyssistr]

Seifz wrote...


It's not a Unix shell.  Unix is an operating system.  Many shells run on Unix and Unix-like operating systems, including sh, bash, tcsh, ksh, and zsh.  As far as I know, Power Shell does not run on any Unix operating systems.  Indeed, it is built in the .NET framework and has its own scripting language that is unique from any *sh languages.

It doesn't matter what the kernel is, you can develop a unix shell for any OS, it just needs to have the basic unix commands and it could even be a whole bash clone for windows. Whether you use posix system calls or win32 api to code it up is not really relevant. What it won't have is binary compatibility, everything else is still the same as a unix shell. 

Edit: btw unix *was* an operating system, new *nix OSes, like Linux, *bsd etc only share a couple of standards like POSIX, sockets for networking, X etc and by default come installed with the "traditional" shells, not even their kernels looks similar. The shell themselves can be ported for anything, you can even write bash for DOS if you fancy playing around with int 21.

I seriously doubt that you have any evidence to back up that claim.  The GNU toolchain is free, but it's developed by a very large community and funded by many, many giants in the computing world including Red Hat, AMD, IBM, and Intel.  It's not some hobbyist project that people use because they can't afford something better.  It's the standard compiler for pretty much everything.

I can back it up, it's my experience when I worked in startups many moons ago. People start with gnu tools and once the VCs give them more funding, they often switch to visual studio, which is what most of the programers ask for.

That's not how it works.  You can't just take a piece from one business and plant it into another business and expect everything to just work.

It's only their engine development/maintainance that needs to change from a structural point of view, after the decision is green lighted.

Modifié par Lyssistr, 23 août 2010 - 07:53 .

[Seifz]

Lyssistr wrote...

Seifz wrote...

It's not a Unix shell.  Unix is an operating system.  Many shells run on Unix and Unix-like operating systems, including sh, bash, tcsh, ksh, and zsh.  As far as I know, Power Shell does not run on any Unix operating systems.  Indeed, it is built in the .NET framework and has its own scripting language that is unique from any *sh languages.

It doesn't matter what the kernel is, you can develop a unix shell for any OS, it just needs to have the basic unix commands and it could even be a whole bash clone for windows. Whether you use posix system calls or win32 api to code it up is not really relevant. What it won't have is binary compatibility, everything else is still the same as a unix shell.

You mean the basic POSIX commands?  Unix is an operating system.  That's it.  Regardless, Power Shell doesn't have have the commands that you'd find in sh or any of its variants.  It's not even close.  Have you ever used Power Shell?  I'm not talking about the lame DOS-like "Command Prompt" garbage, which is also nothing like any POSIX-compliant shell.

Edit: btw unix *was* an operating system, new *nix OSes, like Linux, *bsd etc only share a couple of standards like POSIX, sockets for networking, X etc and by default come installed with the "traditional" shells, not even their kernels looks similar. The shell themselves can be ported for anything, you can even write bash for DOS if you fancy playing around with int 21.

Uh, Unix still is an operating system.  People still use it.  Frequently.  Darwin (the core of MacOS X) is Unix.  All of the various BSDs are Unix.  AIX is Unix.  Linux has nothing to do with Unix.

Bash has been ported to Windows, though I haven't seen a DOS port.  Power Shell is currently being ported to run on the Mono .NET clone.  The port is called Pash and is far from complete.

I seriously doubt that you have any evidence to back up that claim.  The GNU toolchain is free, but it's developed by a very large community and funded by many, many giants in the computing world including Red Hat, AMD, IBM, and Intel.  It's not some hobbyist project that people use because they can't afford something better.  It's the standard compiler for pretty much everything.

I can back it up, it's my experience when I worked in startups many moons ago. People start with gnu tools and once the VCs give them more funding, they often switch to visual studio, which is what most of the programers ask for.

My anecdotal evidence says the opposite.  Anecdotal evidence isn't useful here.  If you don't have actual, statistical evidence to support your claim, it doesn't matter.

That's not how it works.  You can't just take a piece from one business and plant it into another business and expect everything to just work.

It's only their engine development/maintainance that needs to change from a structural point of view, after the decision is green lighted.

Not really.  To really support MacOS, they need to hire more programmers.  The programming group as a whole has to familiarize themselves with new technologies, such as the development environment for OS X.  They need to purchase hardware for development and for testing.  They need to hire new QA folks for testing on MacOS X.  They'll need additional tech support for MacOS X.  They'll need to bring in more people for working on the game after the initial release in order to support multi-platform DLC, etc.  They'll need additional people to develop patches for MacOS X as the client is likely to experience different bugs than the Windows client.  Etc.

But apart from all of that, it might just not be a direction that the company wants to go in.  Perhaps EA doesn't want to start supporting MacOS X with anything more than Cider ports.  Or, perhaps, one contract or another prevents them from doing so.  We really just don't know.

[th3warr1or]

Celticon wrote...

Jigero wrote...

1. Buy a PC
2. Stop complaining about your crap box.
3. ????
4.profit

While there is a premium on Apple products, I've found the interface of OS X satisfying and reliable. I haven't seen 7 yet, but I'm used to the days of XP and Vista's substandard performance.

Actually, they have the option of installing a windows partition on their current machine via bootcamp. That's how I managed to play DA:.

Up until Micro$oft's POS started to give me BSOD after login - and OS X started telling me I couldn't create a new partition after going back to square one. This happened after I installed the toolset, running XP 32 bit at the time.

If you're a mac gamer, go with Bootcamp. Keep your drivers in check and you should be fine.

Windows 7 is amazing.

[Lyssistr]

Seifz wrote...

You mean the basic POSIX commands?  Unix is an operating system.  That's it.  Regardless, Power Shell doesn't have have the commands that you'd find in sh or any of its variants.  It's not even close.  Have you ever used Power Shell?  I'm not talking about the lame DOS-like "Command Prompt" garbage, which is also nothing like any POSIX-compliant shell.

When I referred to *nixes sharing standards I meant the POSIX system calls. Power Shell may not be complete *now* but this doesn't say much, cygwin is a unix shell running on windows. Btw when I talked about DOS, I was not referring to cmd.exe, but rather the old, true Disc Operating System, you can write bash for DOS as well, instead of system calls, you'll be using int 21 to do what you need to do but it doesn't really matter.

Uh, Unix still is an operating system.  People still use it.  Frequently.  Darwin (the core of MacOS X) is Unix.  All of the various BSDs are Unix.  AIX is Unix.  Linux has nothing to do with Unix.

Bell Labs's Unix, or Unix for short, is long dead, BSDs don't share code with Unix, nor does Linux, which is a unix-like OS, since it shares many of the standards which (Bell Labs) unix used. Darwin is bsd strictly speaking, but all of these, *bsd, Linux etc are

Bash has been ported to Windows, though I haven't seen a DOS port.  Power Shell is currently being ported to run on the Mono .NET clone.  The port is called Pash and is far from complete.

Cygwin. for DOS I'm not aware of a port, but the point I'm trying to make is that a unix shell doesn't need a unix kernel to run. You can code it up even for DOS if you like. I'll PM you for *nix shells.

My anecdotal evidence says the opposite.  Anecdotal evidence isn't useful here.  If you don't have actual, statistical evidence to support your claim, it doesn't matter.

Well, then I guess you'll need to find statistics on how widely Visual Studio is used, I haven't ever seen any statistics on any dev studio tbh. Still it's not anecdotal evidence, all this was suggestions from VCs, if it's their policy, they're likely to apply it elsewhere too, not only where I had worked.

Not really.  To really support MacOS, they need to hire more programmers.  The programming group as a whole has to familiarize themselves with new technologies, such as the development environment for OS X.  They need to purchase hardware for development and for testing.  They need to hire new QA folks for testing on MacOS X.  They'll need additional tech support for MacOS X.  They'll need to bring in more people for working on the game after the initial release in order to support multi-platform DLC, etc.  They'll need additional people to develop patches for MacOS X as the client is likely to experience different bugs than the Windows client.  Etc.

Yes, still Blizzard & Valve do that to generate more profit.

But apart from all of that, it might just not be a direction that the company wants to go in.  Perhaps EA doesn't want to start supporting MacOS X with anything more than Cider ports.  Or, perhaps, one contract or another prevents them from doing so.  We really just don't know.

Fair enough and atm they have a contract with the company that makes cedega, so future doesn't look too bright. Still the point of mac-threads is exactly that to stir interest if someone from EA's or Bioware's administration is reading.

[Lyssistr]

th3warr1or wrote...

Windows 7 is amazing.

Yes it is, but that's not the point of this thread now, is it?

[Tietovallu]

Get a real computer and stfu. Mac blows.

[Lyssistr]

Tietovallu wrote...

Get a real computer and stfu. Mac blows.

I bet my cat could type this as well, you must feel very intelligent.

[Tietovallu]

You are right, your cat could also state the obvious.

[Lyssistr]

Tietovallu wrote...

You are right, your cat could also state the obvious.

Well she can't state the obvious but it appears nor can you 

[Tietovallu]

Tell that to the 90% using Linux and Windows. Your cat is also using Windows.

[Lyssistr]

Tietovallu wrote...

Tell that to the 90% using Linux and Windows. Your cat is also using Windows.

My cat is not cheapass 

[Seifz]

Lyssistr wrote...

Seifz wrote...

You mean the basic POSIX commands?  Unix is an operating system.  That's it.  Regardless, Power Shell doesn't have have the commands that you'd find in sh or any of its variants.  It's not even close.  Have you ever used Power Shell?  I'm not talking about the lame DOS-like "Command Prompt" garbage, which is also nothing like any POSIX-compliant shell.

When I referred to *nixes sharing standards I meant the POSIX system calls. Power Shell may not be complete *now* but this doesn't say much, cygwin is a unix shell running on windows. Btw when I talked about DOS, I was not referring to cmd.exe, but rather the old, true Disc Operating System, you can write bash for DOS as well, instead of system calls, you'll be using int 21 to do what you need to do but it doesn't really matter.

My point was that Power Shell is not in any way a "Unix shell".  I don't know why you're talking about writing Bash for DOS.

Uh, Unix still is an operating system.  People still use it.  Frequently.  Darwin (the core of MacOS X) is Unix.  All of the various BSDs are Unix.  AIX is Unix.  Linux has nothing to do with Unix.

Bell Labs's Unix, or Unix for short, is long dead, BSDs don't share code with Unix, nor does Linux, which is a unix-like OS, since it shares many of the standards which (Bell Labs) unix used. Darwin is bsd strictly speaking, but all of these, *bsd, Linux etc are

You're so ridiculously wrong!  http://upload.wikime...tory-simple.svg

Linux has absolutely nothing to do with Unix.  BSD is Unix.  End.

Bash has been ported to Windows, though I haven't seen a DOS port.  Power Shell is currently being ported to run on the Mono .NET clone.  The port is called Pash and is far from complete.

Cygwin. for DOS I'm not aware of a port, but the point I'm trying to make is that a unix shell doesn't need a unix kernel to run. You can code it up even for DOS if you like. I'll PM you for *nix shells.

I wasn't talking about Cygwin.  You can also run Bash natively.  Here's a port based on an older version:  http://win-bash.sourceforge.net/, but you could also use the MinGW environment to run a more recent version.  It's not nearly as complicated and annoying as Cygwin.

My anecdotal evidence says the opposite.  Anecdotal evidence isn't useful here.  If you don't have actual, statistical evidence to support your claim, it doesn't matter.

Well, then I guess you'll need to find statistics on how widely Visual Studio is used, I haven't ever seen any statistics on any dev studio tbh. Still it's not anecdotal evidence, all this was suggestions from VCs, if it's their policy, they're likely to apply it elsewhere too, not only where I had worked.

It's very much anecdotal evidence.  I could say, "I worked at Red Hat and there, we never used VS!"  So what?

But apart from all of that, it might just not be a direction that the company wants to go in.  Perhaps EA doesn't want to start supporting MacOS X with anything more than Cider ports.  Or, perhaps, one contract or another prevents them from doing so.  We really just don't know.

Fair enough and atm they have a contract with the company that makes cedega, so future doesn't look too bright. Still the point of mac-threads is exactly that to stir interest if someone from EA's or Bioware's administration is reading.

Indeed.  Unfortunately, all that we usually get is "that's up to EA, so go bother them."  And, well, that never works out either.  If EA is going to seriously start supporting a second platform (and I highly recommend Linux over MacOS X!), they're going to do it because it'll be profitable for them.  They probably don't much care (as a company) if we want a port.

[Tietovallu]

Lyssistr wrote...

Tietovallu wrote...

Tell that to the 90% using Linux and Windows. Your cat is also using Windows.

My cat is not cheapass 

You just said your cat could write that mac blows.

Mac is fail. No wonder most dont want to make games for it.

[Lyssistr]

Seifz wrote...

My point was that Power Shell is not in any way a "Unix shell".  I don't know why you're talking about writing Bash for DOS.

It has basic compatibility with unix commands, it may not be a full blown shell but that doesn't say much. Bash for dos is for the sake of example -that a *nix shell doesn't need a *nix kernel-.

You're so ridiculously wrong!  http://upload.wikime...tory-simple.svg

Linux has absolutely nothing to do with Unix.  BSD is Unix.  End.

In terms of source code derivation no, and indeed the link you gave shows that early BSD versions seemed to share code with the original unix OS. However, even in that page (Unix OSes), Linux is listed.

Tracking modern code back to 1969 isn't the best way to look at things when deciding what's unix and whatnot, today there's probably nothing left from 1969 code anyhow. Linux is a *nix operating system, shown even in that link you provided, it just doesn't derivate code.

I wasn't talking about Cygwin.  You can also run Bash natively.  Here's a port based on an older version:  http://win-bash.sourceforge.net/, but you could also use the MinGW environment to run a more recent version.  It's not nearly as complicated and annoying as Cygwin.

Fair enough, so we agree a *nix shell doesn't need a *nix kernel to run.

It's very much anecdotal evidence.  I could say, "I worked at Red Hat and there, we never used VS!"  So what?

Since there aren't any statistics that I'm aware of for the popularity of Visual Studio, I posted my personal experience. You can argue it's anecdotal, but my experience still is that people prefer to work with VS than free tools and usually free tools are used to cut down costs. In my current work however, while there are absolutely no budget issues we do use allot OSS, so choice for OSS is not only to cut costs. But the firm I work in now has its own, proprietary, programming language, which we use for all internal coding, so VS's advantages evaporate. I'd say this is a singular case however, since my current job is *not* in a software development company.

Indeed.  Unfortunately, all that we usually get is "that's up to EA, so go bother them."  And, well, that never works out either.  If EA is going to seriously start supporting a second platform (and I highly recommend Linux over MacOS X!), they're going to do it because it'll be profitable for them.  They probably don't much care (as a company) if we want a port.

Well, I don't expect anything in the near future either but Valve at the end did their market research and did the unthinkable, you never know. I'm not saying this thread will make Bioware/EA make native games, however it can contribute a tiny bit in that direction.

Modifié par Lyssistr, 24 août 2010 - 11:53 .

[Lyssistr]

Tietovallu wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Tietovallu wrote...

Tell that to the 90% using Linux and Windows. Your cat is also using Windows.

My cat is not cheapass 

You just said your cat could write that mac blows.

Mac is fail. No wonder most dont want to make games for it.

Go play with your bike and leave macs in peace 

[Tietovallu]

Lyssistr wrote...

Tietovallu wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Tietovallu wrote...

Tell that to the 90% using Linux and Windows. Your cat is also using Windows.

My cat is not cheapass 

You just said your cat could write that mac blows.

Mac is fail. No wonder most dont want to make games for it.

Go play with your bike and leave macs in peace 

No, I want to tell everyone how mac fails and make sure Bioware never makes any more games for it.

As I said: buy a real computer and stop crying over an obvious thing. Mac will always be inferior to other operating systems.

Modifié par Tietovallu, 24 août 2010 - 12:37 .

[Lyssistr]

Tietovallu wrote...

No, I want to tell everyone how mac fails and make sure Bioware never makes any more games for it.

As I said: buy a real computer and stop crying over an obvious thing. Mac will always be inferior to other operating systems.

lol

[Tietovallu]

Last time you replied that way was when you got owned.



I take that "lol" as "I have been owned".

[Lyssistr]

Tietovallu wrote...

Last time you replied that way was when you got owned.

I take that "lol" as "I have been owned".

Dude, go troll elsewhere, ride your bike or whatever. 

[jazzy B 3]

There are benefits and disadvantages to both systems The reason why Windows is so unstable is also the reason why it is easier to develop for and hence provides a wider variety of gaming experiences. While macs have a premium they are of a guaranteed quality, but this comes at the cost of having a very closed system which is harder to develop for.



Macs are for work, PCs for play, that's how I look at them.

[Lyssistr]

jazzy B 3 wrote...

There are benefits and disadvantages to both systems The reason why Windows is so unstable is also the reason why it is easier to develop for and hence provides a wider variety of gaming experiences. While macs have a premium they are of a guaranteed quality, but this comes at the cost of having a very closed system which is harder to develop for.

Macs are for work, PCs for play, that's how I look at them.

I wouldn't say the NT-branch of windows is unstable, I've found it to be pretty solid. Macs indeed have guaranteed quality but imo there isn't a substantial premium when you compare them to products of the same quality, they have pricing at roughly the same levels.

 Indeed Macs excel at professional use and their ease of use is a big plus for productivity, however, there is no penalty per se for gaming.

So far the only games I wanted to play that didn't come out on a mac at all was ME/ME2 and Dreamfall Chapters. Bioware/EA already ports most of their games using cider, what I'd like to see is making proper mac versions, Like Valve & Blizzard.