Macintosh Forums

[*End Is Forever*]

I'm reliably informed that a high-power Mac is excellent for artsy stuff... however, move onto the internet (or Civ ) and the support is terrible.

Generally speaking, more money for less power, and less support and software.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by d_dudy
the only troll is you insulting mac users! i like mac because the os is way better and because i'm not a conformist, not that all pc users are. i just had a choice and i chose this, i didn't just want a computer, i wanted the computer that was right for me

Conformist? It's a bleeding computer for gods sake! I want something that is functional, I can get hold of software with ease, and quite importantly for me, I can play around with, upgrade, take apart, fix, repair, etc. I want functionality, not a fashion statement. If the PC isn't quite all the rage in Paris or Milan, then I'm bleeding sorry, but usefulness and a decent price for what I get takes priority over the 'it is a Mac novelty' which I don't understand anyway. Although a universal format brings it's problems (Wintel for example), the plus sides outweigh this.

and i didn't say anything about photoshop, no one did. quit *****ing about it already

OK, but if people are so keen on running Photoshop at lightning speed, why not just save up and get yourself a silicon graphics workstation or something

[Gatekeeper]

Asher, Ming, PH, et al.:

Just as the ad designers in Ming's workplace swear by the Macintosh, so do I. I've had my machine since May 1999 and, before that, a Performa which I purchased in November 1996. (The mid-1990s being Apple's darkest time, from what I remember.)

I have yet to have to repair my computer. I have yet to have a virus target it simply because I'm using Windows OS (admittedly, part of that involves the intelligence not to just open every attachment one receives or downloads from suspect sites) or because Windows got corrupted by something. I laugh at those folks who proudly claim their PCs run for days, maybe even weeks, before they have to tweak something with Windows in order to return their PC to "optimal" performance. Why do I laugh? Because I've run my Apple Macintosh computers for *years* w/o having to reinstall the OS or some other godforsaken program that wasn't 110 percent Windows compatible (in my case, Apple OS compatible).

Beyond that, though, maybe it all comes down to what one does with their computer. I could probably be described as the quintessential consumer (albeit one w/some knowledge of a 'puter's innards). I purchased my iMac 333mhz because it fit what I wanted to do: surf the Internet. It was also fast enough to handle my other needs, such as writing/design and playing Civ II, which is the only game I play on the Mac (my PlayStation is the main gaming machine, mostly for RPGs like ChronoTrigger and ChronoCross).

Obviously others bought their PCs because they like to rummage around inside it or constantly upgrade (keeping up w/the Jones family, so to speak). Apparently those who buy PCs for games must always be on the cutting edge of speed and power because the game designers are always on the edge.

Suffice to say, folks buy what suits them.

CYBERAmazon

[bradman]

Re: Macintosh Forums

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Honest question here - it just popped into my head.

What is so significantly different about the Mac versions of the Civ series to justify three extra forums...?

One example: Alpha Centauri for the Mac contains bugfixes for the never-released 5.0 patch for the PC, and then some more fixes I added in myself based on the big-ass "bug" thread in the PC SMAC forum.

I think an overarching forum would only boggle PC users who are hopelessly confused as to why Mac users don't see these bugs. Plus I'd hate to see Mac users constantly rubbing this in.

Brad

[Asher]

Originally posted by CYBERAmazon
I have yet to have to repair my computer. I have yet to have a virus target it simply because I'm using Windows OS (admittedly, part of that involves the intelligence not to just open every attachment one receives or downloads from suspect sites) or because Windows got corrupted by something. I laugh at those folks who proudly claim their PCs run for days, maybe even weeks, before they have to tweak something with Windows in order to return their PC to "optimal" performance. Why do I laugh? Because I've run my Apple Macintosh computers for *years* w/o having to reinstall the OS or some other godforsaken program that wasn't 110 percent Windows compatible (in my case, Apple OS compatible).

I laugh at those people, too.
Do you know why? Because they have no frickin' clue what they're doing.
I install an OS and it stays running. I don't reformat it monthly, I don't reinstall it.
Especially with 2K/XP.
As for virii: That has nothing to do with the platform as it does the popularity of the platform. If more people bought macs, you'd be seeing the same thing.
Luckily for us we have things called "anti-virus programs".

Beyond that, though, maybe it all comes down to what one does with their computer. I could probably be described as the quintessential consumer (albeit one w/some knowledge of a 'puter's innards). I purchased my iMac 333mhz because it fit what I wanted to do: surf the Internet. It was also fast enough to handle my other needs, such as writing/design and playing Civ II, which is the only game I play on the Mac (my PlayStation is the main gaming machine, mostly for RPGs like ChronoTrigger and ChronoCross).

News flash: You could have bought a faster PC for half the price to surf the internet on, plus play Civ2 and write/design. Could have used the money you saved to buy a PlayStation 2.

Obviously others bought their PCs because they like to rummage around inside it or constantly upgrade (keeping up w/the Jones family, so to speak). Apparently those who buy PCs for games must always be on the cutting edge of speed and power because the game designers are always on the edge.

So you prefer not being able to upgrade?

[Asher]

Re: Re: Macintosh Forums

Originally posted by bradman
One example: Alpha Centauri for the Mac contains bugfixes for the never-released 5.0 patch for the PC, and then some more fixes I added in myself based on the big-ass "bug" thread in the PC SMAC forum.

I think an overarching forum would only boggle PC users who are hopelessly confused as to why Mac users don't see these bugs. Plus I'd hate to see Mac users constantly rubbing this in.

Brad

On the reverse, there are a ton more bugs in Diablo II mac than the PC. My friend has one.

[bradman]

Re: Re: Re: Macintosh Forums

Originally posted by Asher

On the reverse, there are a ton more bugs in Diablo II mac than the PC. My friend has one.

Ah, the old "my friend said..." - there's hard data. My D2 seems more stable on the Mac than the PC - both using the GeForce 2MX. Clearly there's room on both sides of the fence.

But back to the topic at hand.

Here are the bugfixes in Mac SMAC above and beyond the 5.0 (SMACX 2.0-equivalent) patch, in reverse order from when I added them. Judge the usefulness for yourself.

• You can now choose which monitor you'd like to play on via the Options dialog. Note that this only applies when you are running the game fullscreen and not in a window.

• Added ability to prevent the "ESC" key from attempting to quit SMAC. To configure this, hold down the 'option' or 'command' key immediately after starting SMAC and check the appropriate box.

- If you attempted to turn a "native" unit over to the wild (e.g. an Isle of the Deep) and it had units aboard, those units would erroneously be turned wild as well. You must now move those units off the native unit before releasing it to the wild.

• Incorporates all of the gameplay fixes that are in Alien Crossfire 2.0.

- Urgent Messages no longer repeatedly pop-up.

- (SMAX only) Energy grid calculations for the alien factions now work properly.

- The Secret Project report window no longer displays random info for projects belonging to bases which have been destroyed.

- Infiltrating a base via "Total Thought Control" will now turn off any designated defenders for that base since they are under new management.

- Starting multiple games in the same session now restores the console to its proper initial state.

- If a faction is eliminated but escapes to continue play, you now remember its commlink frequency.

- It was possible for some units to spontaneously morph into others or be spontaneously reassigned to different bases. This has been fixed.

- The "Select Research Goal" dialog could print out text using the wrong fonts/styles in certain cases. This is now fixed.

- If a pact-brother unit is the top unit in one of your bases, the game will now draw all the units properly in the map window.

- New feature: the base window now displays the support costs, and displays an adjusted energy output based on that.

- Fixed issue where Alien Crossfire could crash when loading certain types of SMAC save-games.

• SMAC keeps track of the total time you've spent playing. The number of hours and minutes is listed in the About box found in the Apple menu (as opposed to the in-game About box).

• If you load a demo game that ended due to the demo time limit at year 2200, SMAC will now allow you to continue playing that game as if it never ended.

- The movement AI could send the game into an infinite loop giving the appearance that SMAC had crashed.

- The base production window had some text alignment glitches in 800x600.

- Tech tree buttons in the datalinks did not work if you were viewing "all categories."

- Net games didn't honor the "look first" setting when configuring the game rules.

Brad

[MarkG]

(both hands) @ Brad

[Wiglaf]

asher, you presented your case, here's mine

windows isn't the perfect os. I see you defending it relentlessly all the time in the OT against dozens of complaints. everything works fine for you - probably because you spend a load more time working with computers than anyone else on that forum.

but there are others - the people who aren't into things like that as much as you are. having your computer screen turn blue constantly is annoying, and having to worry about all the garbage products out there (I saw you laughing at DocfeelGood for buying a compaq, one of the computer market leaders...how should he know the package he got would be less than advertised?).

macs don't have as much software, but if you just want a good, stable computer that can run a good amount of major releases and a few more or less optimized games, why not? the price isn't gross, save for some G4 tower models (don't tell me Dell doesn't do that with their 2GHz P4s)...a great computer, in mac terms, would be about $1400 - not cheap, but not something to whine about.

of course, many people like PCs, and I can understand that. most programs stem from that OS, and they are generally very affordable. still, MS is a tough company to trust and their products are not nearly as simple to understand.

a word on imacs...I've got one, it's a good computer. three years old now, and it can still run most software (OSX, Word, etc) and only crashes twice or so times every month now that I've cleared it out a bit. costly? maybe, but there was very little frustration compared to windows98 or XP (although I haven't personally used the latter enough to be the final word on that)

newsflash: not everyone demands to have cutting edge games and software on their computer. PCs are better for that. some of us want simplicity and a computer that will work and run the basics and more advanced software like Photoshop. while apple has a good amount of gimmicks of their own, their product is superior until you can prove otherwise. saying we're idiots or children doesn't do that.

both are good. PCs are awesome and so are macs. so don't spout out that kiddie table troll again, it's annoying.

[d_dudy]

Originally posted by d_dudy


the only troll is you insulting mac users! i like mac because the os is way better and because i'm not a conformist, not that all pc users are. i just had a choice and i chose this, i didn't just want a computer, i wanted the computer that was right for me

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Conformist? It's a bleeding computer for gods sake! I want something that is functional, I can get hold of software with ease, and quite importantly for me, I can play around with, upgrade, take apart, fix, repair, etc. I want functionality, not a fashion statement. If the PC isn't quite all the rage in Paris or Milan, then I'm bleeding sorry, but usefulness and a decent price for what I get takes priority over the 'it is a Mac novelty' which I don't understand anyway. Although a universal format brings it's problems (Wintel for example), the plus sides outweigh this.

i underlined it for you this time, because you clearly missed it the first time. i put that in there just for people who by windows just because they want a computer for having a computer. i knew what i wanted when i bought this and that's why i bought it

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
windows isn't the perfect os. I see you defending it relentlessly all the time in the OT against dozens of complaints. everything works fine for you - probably because you spend a load more time working with computers than anyone else on that forum.

I know people with Macs (OS 9 in specific) that have tons of problems. There's two sides to this fence (blahblah, whatever the guy said earlier).

but there are others - the people who aren't into things like that as much as you are. having your computer screen turn blue constantly is annoying, and having to worry about all the garbage products out there (I saw you laughing at DocfeelGood for buying a compaq, one of the computer market leaders...how should he know the package he got would be less than advertised?).

Compaqs use cheap parts, as evidenced by their uber-cheap prices. They use some proprietary hardware that forces you go upgrade with **** parts for more money than you would normally, their tech support is possibly the worst, and they skip around sending actual OS CDs with your PC. They're absoltely awful.
As for the BSODs: In 2K (And XP specifically) those are a very rare occurance. OS X crashes more in my personal experience, and it's based on BSD.
Mac OS 9 and below didn't have protected memory either, so they had the same problem, just not with a blue screen.

macs don't have as much software, but if you just want a good, stable computer that can run a good amount of major releases and a few more or less optimized games, why not?

Because it's several times the price of something that can do more?

the price isn't gross, save for some G4 tower models (don't tell me Dell doesn't do that with their 2GHz P4s)...a great computer, in mac terms, would be about $1400 - not cheap, but not something to whine about.

What computer would that be?
Christ, a $1400 mac would probably be a 333MHz G3. Which is about the same as a 333MHz Pentium II. You can get a 333MHz P2 for far less than $1400.

of course, many people like PCs, and I can understand that. most programs stem from that OS, and they are generally very affordable. still, MS is a tough company to trust and their products are not nearly as simple to understand.

You'd rather trust Steve Jobs? Someone who has more control over everything on your computer? Someone who is more concerned over the color of the next iMac over cache sizes on your chip? Haha...
Windows XP is very, very easy to understand. You can also turn off the "friendly" features and have a very advanced OS.
Something which, until OS X, was impossible to do on the Mac.
And the only reason OS X has advanced features is that it's ripped out of BSD, the Apple Engineers couldn't do it themselves.

a word on imacs...I've got one, it's a good computer. three years old now, and it can still run most software (OSX, Word, etc) and only crashes twice or so times every month now that I've cleared it out a bit. costly? maybe, but there was very little frustration compared to windows98 or XP (although I haven't personally used the latter enough to be the final word on that)

Oh, the frustration with Windows 98 and XP. What a great ignorant comment.
Frustrating is having to ship 2 OSes when you buy OS X (OS 9 and OS X) because Apple is too stupid to figure out decent emulation.
By "frustration" in 98, I assume you mean the BSODs everyone complains about. Those aren't as common as the Mac user might think, especially considering that 90% of BSODs come from bad drivers or obsolete drivers. And the reason they're bad or obsolete is usually because the person bought cheap hardware (Compaq, again) or doesn't upgrade their drivers.
XP makes BSOD pretty much obsolete compared to 98. Drivers are updated automatically with Windows Update, and it's got protected memory and all of that. I've only had one BSOD w/ Windows XP, and that was with "Whistler Beta 1" about 6 months ago, and due to using a non-WHQL driver for my brand new video card.

newsflash: not everyone demands to have cutting edge games and software on their computer.

I don't understand!
Why do you pay more for less?!
Who CARES if you don't demand the more software selection, SAVE THE MONEY. The more software is a handy bonus!

PCs are better for that. some of us want simplicity and a computer that will work and run the basics and more advanced software like Photoshop.

PCs can be just as simple as Macs if you want them to be. Nobody makes you use the advanced features, but they're there if you want to. For cheaper.

while apple has a good amount of gimmicks of their own, their product is superior until you can prove otherwise. saying we're idiots or children doesn't do that.

You've been on a Mac too long, my friend.

both are good. PCs are awesome and so are macs. so don't spout out that kiddie table troll again, it's annoying.

Macs are NOT AWESOME in ANY WAY.
Their proprietary about EVERYTHING which skyrockets the price, they use obsolete hardware and charge a fortune for it, their OS is a kludged version of a dinosaur OS with a disfunctional annoying GUI, and there's limited software support.

The only reason you still use it is because you're used to it.
If you seriously think something like Windows XP is too hard, then you shouldn't be using a computer at all. It's just as easy as the Mac, but can do so much more for less.

My last post in this thread because it's circular.
You guys are brainwashed beyond belief, and you're welcome to keep pouring your money into Apple so you can run Claris Works and Photoshop.

[Wiglaf]

What computer would that be?
Christ, a $1400 mac would probably be a 333MHz G3. Which is about the same as a 333MHz Pentium II. You can get a 333MHz P2 for far less than $1400.

for accuracy, $1400 would be a 700MHz iMac, 256 RAM, 60 gig HD, and a Rage Pro graphics card. and since all parts seem to be higher in quality than their PC rivals (you've said gateway, HP, and compaq are poor choices for a windows machine..what's left but dell? and is it good to have only one company that can produce a good PC?), it isn't that bad a deal as I don't believe the clock speeds are directly comparable anyway.

macs do get a large userbase from the fan sector, I'm not disputing that.

also, I'm not brainwashed, I'm actually very open to PCs. but you have an obvious bias so it's hard to take you seriously. I'm used to a mac, sure, but the simplicity is great (or used to be..over the last few years I've got more used to windows and don't weigh a purchase based on user interface anymore) and until now I really didn't need a computer that could handle everything. I needed stability and features, and I got it.

when you come out full force like that, it's hard to convince me you're right. although it might be true apple is more concerned about the case on their computers than anything else, your post was like talking to some MS rep..not very open minded or fair.

don't trash macs so quickly. when I need more programs and universal support, I might get a PC. right now that's not what I need - I just want stability, and OSX and 9 provides that, among other important everyday things.

again, both are awesome depending on your needs. Right now my needs are changing, and I'm looking into the PC market (very expensive to get a good computer from dell). calm down. there isn't some blind war of the platforms, and if there is it's immature.

Until you can prove otherwise, macs are more powerful but can run less, but optimized software. That's accurate, I would think, and clearly and fairly displays the strengths and flaws of the two.

their OS is a kludged version of a dinosaur OS with a disfunctional annoying GUI

just to clarify, it's things like that that make you look bad. windows was hardly the best in the business.

[bradman]

Originally posted by Asher As for the BSODs: In 2K (And XP specifically) those are a very rare occurance. OS X crashes more in my personal experience, and it's based on BSD.

Fascinating. You have personal experience with OSX? Do tell us, and please share the sins of BSD while you're at it. Does the BSD kernel offend you as well?

Brad

[Wiglaf]

asher probably left the thread to once again get the almighty last word in.

interesting that this happens the only time that he's confronted with someone more literate in computers than he is.

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

Do any of you see the irony in Asher accusing Macintosh users of being brainwashed? I mean, here's a guy who spouts alphabet soup for the PC like *he* was assimiliated long ago.

Since Asher proclaims he's not returning to this thread, I proclaim that I'm not answering the questions he posed to me most recently in this thread.

CYBERAmazon

(P.S. If I ever do get a PC, I've heard enough "whispers" to stay away from Gateway and Compaq products.)