Macintosh Forums

[Wiglaf]

this isn't a troll, but it comes close

I mean, here's a guy who spouts alphabet soup for the PC like *he* was assimiliated long ago.

he's very biased, no doubts there. good points went to waste thanks to his early exit.

Macs 1
Asher 0

*crowd roars*

[Admiral]

Hail, defenders of the superior platform/OS
Can't believe i missed the debate

[Wiglaf]

troll #2

superior until someone proves otherwise, something asher really didn't do. the software arguement is obvious, the hardware is where he faltered in terms of giving an open minded PoV.

then again, if you ever want to see old ash come back , don't be as biased as he was. you can't call him ignorant unless you really make sure you're being fair yourself.

for the record, we stomped him

[Asher]

*watches the pathetic attempt to troll and just laughs*

If it makes you feel less pathetic you can keep pretending your platform is awesome.

Myself, I like to have more power and options for less money.

But hey, not everyone's logical.

And my case is not nearly as purty as yours.

[d_dudy]

Originally posted by Asher
*watches the pathetic attempt to troll and just laughs*

If it makes you feel less pathetic you can keep pretending your platform is awesome.

Myself, I like to have more power and options for less money.

But hey, not everyone's logical.

And my case is not nearly as purty as yours.

(emphasis mine)

logical, like providing points to back up your opinions? in a debate, it would be logical to provide points that support one's opinion (in order to win)

seems like we neutralized all your points and bradman provided better arguments for our side. so who's being illogical?

[Asher]

This is hardly a debate.
This was an argument.

I haven't seen you post any "facts".

The fact is, PCs are cheaper.
And they're faster (even now for Photoshop): http://www.techtv.com/news/story/0,2...339307,00.html
And they run more stuff.

What more do you want?

It's your turn for facts.

[Smash]

it is a good platform.Windoze sure looks familiar

however
Its like beta vs vhs.Sorry mac users...we lose.

[d_dudy]

Originally posted by Asher
This is hardly a debate.
This was an argument.

I haven't seen you post any "facts".

The fact is, PCs are cheaper.
And they're faster (even now for Photoshop): http://www.techtv.com/news/story/0,2...339307,00.html
And they run more stuff.

What more do you want?

It's your turn for facts.

well, i'd say something about photoshop, but.......

smash, why did you ever get a mac in the first place? and have you upgraded yet?

[bradman]

Originally posted by Asher I haven't seen you post any "facts".

It's definitely hard to take your word on anything with the poor research youv'e shown already, e.g. $1400 333MHz Macs and the OSX "ripped out of BSD" comment. I'm certain you don't know what MacOS X is vs. BSD based on that alone. If you do, please share with the class.

One fact I do know - and which is relevant to this forum - is that not only is the Mac gaming experience with SMAC (and soon, Civ3) different from the PC, it is significantly better. While it's true that you can buy a cheap PC and a knock-off OS for less than an equivalent Mac setup, you're also paying for it in other ways. In economic terms, it's referred to as "opportunity cost."

Brad

[Asher]

It's definitely hard to take your word on anything with the poor research youv'e shown already, e.g. $1400 333MHz Macs and the OSX "ripped out of BSD" comment. I'm certain you don't know what MacOS X is vs. BSD based on that alone. If you do, please share with the class.

I never said OSX was ripped out of BSD. Don't put words into my mouth.
OS X uses the Mach microkernel with a flashy (albeit annoying) new interface called Aqua.
I've done a report on OS X, with fairly technical writeups about Cocoa, Carbon, the kernel, Aqua, etc. Go ahead, quiz me.

And I'll have you know BSD is my favorite of the Unixes.
It's just too bad they selected such a poor kernel, compared to the other choices out there.

Originally posted by bradman
One fact I do know - and which is relevant to this forum - is that not only is the Mac gaming experience with SMAC (and soon, Civ3) different from the PC, it is significantly better.

Well, I was honestly never too fond of SMAC to begin with, nor do I care that for some odd reason the Macs have a more up to date version. And the fact that this DOES happen is more certainly not a statement about the platform, but rather that the Mac port takes additional time and in that time might have some new features.
Sorry, Macs rarely get games out near the time the PC does, and when they do, they're woefully out of date in most cases. And they run quite a bit slower.

While it's true that you can buy a cheap PC and a knock-off OS for less than an equivalent Mac setup, you're also paying for it in other ways. In economic terms, it's referred to as "opportunity cost."

"knock-off OS"? What kind of research have you been doing?
What opportunity costs are associated with the PC?
It's easier (and cheaper) to buy hardware for it, it's easier to buy software for it, and you don't have to waste time booting into OS9 to run half of your applications (time is an opportunity cost, you know). I don't see how that has any relevance to this debate, though.

[bradman]

Originally posted by Asher

I never said OSX was ripped out of BSD. Don't put words into my mouth.

OK, first question. Who wrote the following quote just above in this thread: "And the only reason OS X has advanced features is that it's ripped out of BSD"?

Your only hint - the poster's nickname has "her" in it.

Here's a follow-up question. The same person wrote the following quote: "OS X crashes more in my personal experience, and it's based on BSD."

Based on the context of that sentence, the trailing clause about BSD would lead any sane person to deduce that the speaker finds BSD less than satisfactory. Or the other alternative - the speaker likes to tack on unrelated clauses to confuse people and really finds BSD the most pleasant of the Unixes. Which is it?

I'm very pleased to see you come back to this discussion (or argument, if you prefer). It shows that you treat your word with as much respect as we do.

And the fact that this DOES happen is more certainly not a statement about the platform, but rather that the Mac port takes additional time and in that time might have some new features.

How do you figure? Are we only allowed to patch games before their release? In the case of SMAC, the "5.0+" patch came out 6 months after the Mac version hit the shelves. Those fixes above and beyond 4.0 weren't done in the time allotted for the original port.

"knock-off OS"? What kind of research have you been doing?What opportunity costs are associated with the PC?
It's easier (and cheaper) to buy hardware for it, it's easier to buy software for it, and you don't have to waste time booting into OS9 to run half of your applications (time is an opportunity cost, you know). I don't see how that has any relevance to this debate, though.

My quote about knock-offs was mainly directed at the new "Luna" interface of XP. It bears a striking resemblance to another interface I've seen recently. Regarding booting in to OS9, I'm sure you already know this owing to your research of OSX, but you need only start the classic box once inside 10. What I typically do is have it start up when I log in, and I usually surf the net in IE or do any of a dozen other things (like launch CodeWarrior and get to work) while classic starts up. There is no time lost in the process, at least on my behalf. Perhaps if you are a very linear, do-things-in-a-straight-line type, you might just sit there and wait for classic to start up before doing anything else.

As for opportunity cost, the PC is blessed/saddled (take your pick) with a much wider variety and combination of hardware, which while good in one respect, increases the support costs many times over the much smaller number of configurations you find on the Mac platform.

However, I wasn't referring to hardware in my statement, I was referring to software - specifically SMAC and Civ3. While it seems likely that PC users will get Civ3 a few months before Mac users, I am equally as certain it will have fewer features and more bugs than the Mac version, as was the case with Alpha Centauri. That is the opportunity cost I was referring to, and one which is actually relevant to this forum.

Brad

[d_dudy]

to all: see my above post about bradman making betyer points than asher

[monolith94]

I'd like to see you play escape velocity, escape velocity override, or escape velocity nova on a pc.

And now these are not shoddy shareware titles. Each can easily consume the amount of game time of Max Payne (which coincidentally is coming to mac ). they are truly awesome mac titles.

Just because it's mac doesn't mean the games are bad. True, a few years ago the situation looked pretty dim. But the situation has gotten much better. In fact, many say that there has never been a better time to be a mac gamer.

And historically, mac games have always looked better then on pcs. All the way from civ 1 to Fly 2.

Mac solidarity, mes freres!

[Asher]

Originally posted by bradman
OK, first question. Who wrote the following quote just above in this thread: "And the only reason OS X has advanced features is that it's ripped out of BSD"?

I said the advanced features are ripped out. IE: preemptive multitasking, protected memory.

Based on the context of that sentence, the trailing clause about BSD would lead any sane person to deduce that the speaker finds BSD less than satisfactory. Or the other alternative - the speaker likes to tack on unrelated clauses to confuse people and really finds BSD the most pleasant of the Unixes. Which is it?

"And it's based on BSD", as in, it should be far more stable than that.
Apple took the Mach microkernel and made it significantly less stable.

How do you figure? Are we only allowed to patch games before their release? In the case of SMAC, the "5.0+" patch came out 6 months after the Mac version hit the shelves. Those fixes above and beyond 4.0 weren't done in the time allotted for the original port.

I believe my comment was I don't care about isolated incidents regarding a specific software title, considering some of the best games don't even RUN on the Mac platform.

My quote about knock-offs was mainly directed at the new "Luna" interface of XP. It bears a striking resemblance to another interface I've seen recently.

You're right, it looks like Windows always has, except with more color.

Regarding booting in to OS9, I'm sure you already know this owing to your research of OSX, but you need only start the classic box once inside 10. What I typically do is have it start up when I log in, and I usually surf the net in IE or do any of a dozen other things (like launch CodeWarrior and get to work) while classic starts up. There is no time lost in the process, at least on my behalf. Perhaps if you are a very linear, do-things-in-a-straight-line type, you might just sit there and wait for classic to start up before doing anything else.

Don't you care about resource usage at all?
I mean, you've got some pretty weak hardware under the hood for most things, spare what you can.

As for opportunity cost, the PC is blessed/saddled (take your pick) with a much wider variety and combination of hardware, which while good in one respect, increases the support costs many times over the much smaller number of configurations you find on the Mac platform.

So how come you still pay more for the Mac?
You're saying basically "more choice means more support costs which is evil".
If you think that is evil, I'm glad you're not on a PC.
We don't live under a communist rule where Steve Jobs tells us what hardware to use and when. No sir.

However, I wasn't referring to hardware in my statement, I was referring to software - specifically SMAC and Civ3. While it seems likely that PC users will get Civ3 a few months before Mac users, I am equally as certain it will have fewer features and more bugs than the Mac version, as was the case with Alpha Centauri. That is the opportunity cost I was referring to, and one which is actually relevant to this forum.

Pray tell, what will the Mac version have that the PC won't?

I'd like to see you play escape velocity, escape velocity override, or escape velocity nova on a pc.

I have played them before. Good games, but they got old pretty fast.
It says something when you rationalize a purchase of an overpriced obsolete system for a sharewaretitle.

And historically, mac games have always looked better then on pcs. All the way from civ 1 to Fly 2.

ROFL.
Yeah, okay, let's follow the logic here:
Macs are better because you get games later, and because of this have some different graphics.

Tell me, how does Half-Life look on the Mac (only one of the best games ever...)
Oh, that's right, they scrapped it for the Mac, didn't they?

Weak, weak arguments.
If you had the game selection AND the "improved graphics" WHILE coming out at the EXACT SAME TIME, you would have a point.

[Asher]

Originally posted by d_dudy
to all: see my above post about bradman making betyer points than asher

And you, d_dudy, are the reason why most people can't stand Mac users.
You don't have any clue what you're talking about so you fall behind marketing rhetoric or make stupid remarks like the above which in no way relate to the debate.

It's funny how when people have a clue about how to use a computer (compsci students, etc), they almost never use a Mac.

Yet you go into the Social Science department, filled with people who typically have no clue with regards to how a computer works and rely on marketing/appearance only, they're flooded with Macs.
Is that just a coincidence?