Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Sifter3000, 26 May 2010.
Hmm never seen it, should watch it at some point.
Windows has DirectX. OS X only has OpenGL and is built out of hardware designed for DirectX over OpenGL. End of gaming argument.
OS X is more stable out of the box, but adding 3rd party hardware is just as much of a stability-crushing opportunity as for Windows.
The bottom line - Windows is just as stable as Mac OS when it's configured right, on top of which it's got the performance edge. Windows = gaming win. True, Macs have a lot of other stuff going for them (Mac Mini = HTPC perfection), but they sure don't cut it when you're talking FPS in [INSERT GAME HERE].
Look at the FPS chart. Mac = pwned.
Is it wrong to want to see one not on a hackintosh with forceware?
An official Mac would cost twice that of a comparable Hackintosh.
Given someone was trying to run Portal under Windows 2000 recently,
I'd really like to know what data Valve's using for this comparison.
A none-positive comment doesn't make it a negative comment. I don't really see this as an "attack" on PCs. It's just a developer talking about their experiences, it's something new to them, and with it being on apple computers, with their hardware lockdown, they can probably get stuff done quicker. Also, I think people are reading it in to it a bit much, Not Macs, but Portal.
1) Come on, don't be ignorant, do you really think they have 2 weeks experience running on Macs? This will have been in progress for a long time.
2) Clearly, however they're talking about Portal only.
3)Again, they're talking about portal.
4)I don't think anyone thinks anything differently.
Dastardly, who can play with all the freezing 62.3 fps a second gives, even though isn't it 30fps is the maximum your eye can notice or something?
While portal is perfectly playable (and I know I wouldn't be complaining about that performance) it's a good point to show how the same hardware fares between windows and macs when it comes to games.
I expected there to be a performance difference, but not such a large one as Anandtech shown.
Will be the driver maturity between the two operating systems.
Until now why would anyone spend any money making drivers optimised for Portal when it didnt work on the mac?
Yes, a game that was released on PC Windows nearly three years ago, meaning that, as is the custom now, it was released in a slightly buggy, more easily crashed form. The OSX version had the advantage of receiving a completely patched, ready-to-go game, which has matured to the point of running perfectly on most systems.
In other words, the OSX version didn't suffer from the initial period that we have to suffer through as gamers... you know, being used as testing guinea pigs...
No, 60FPS is the maximum the human eye can see on most LCD monitors because that's how many times the image on the screen is refreshed every second. On monitors with higher refresh rates, you will be able to see higher FPS.
lol, I wonder what valve made as a basis for this?, OSX installed with alot of stuff is just as stable (or unstable) as windows installed with the same(or similar) programs running on the background. ive seen alot of crashes on OSX based on how I use it (think of it as not like a mac user only staring at the screen just because of awe on the expensive non-windows machine infront of him). if you use a mac the same as you use windows I think stability wise it will be the same
No, that's only if if you have VSync enabled. The framerate is independent to the monitor's refresh rate. IMO, the comfortable framerate for our eyes (at least for mine) is approx. 85 Hz. And that's why I still use my CRT monitor for gaming, because I can crank its refresh rate and resolutions to whatever I like
Yes, but was my understanding that even if you had a framerate of 200FPS in a game, on a 60Hz monitor you would only see 60 of them.
An interesting article. While it's too early to call, if Valve's product range grows rapidly, we may well be saying in 2-5 years time: "if you're a gamer, you're better off without Windows".
That would be good news - as long as it leads to increased competition between platforms. The last thing we want is to be reliant on a single, dominant platform (OSX or Win) pushing its own APIs with little incentive - due to its dominance - to enrich them for the benefit of the consumer.
More competition = consumer wins. Monopolies = consumer loses.
My Steam crashes running...
Windows xp 0
Windows 7 32 bit 0
Windows 7 64 bit 0
Hackintosh OSX 2
It should run more stable on a MAc as MACs don't do sh!t but as you can see Microsoft 0 Mac 2 nuff said.
No, not enough said. Use a Mac, not a Hackintosh, which by definition and name has been hacked.
That said, I still stand by my earlier comments. There hasn't been enough time that Mac Steam has been around to make a huge jump in the stability argument. I am just glad its available!
Separate names with a comma.