A PC do I want one?

SHEEELLLLYYYYY
THREAD SPLITING ISN'T WORKING!!!!!

Skeletor, I'm jealous. That's going to be a damn good gaming system.

Bullwinkle wrote:

FPS:
The Orange Box (HL2 + Ep 1&2 + Portal)
Fallout 3
Bioshock
Call of Duty 4
Mount & Blade
Crysis (although the second half is crap)
Left4Dead
FEAR (older, but great)

Strategy:
Armageddon Empires
Civilization 4
Total War (various editions)
Disciples 2
Dominions 3

This is a good list- I would add that the Orange box also comes with Team Fortress 2 which is one of the most pleasurable FPS experiences you will have on your sweet new rig.

And in the strategy section, don't miss Galactic Civilizations 2 and the expansions. Great 4X gaming.

There's going to be a happy Skeletor in the land down under.

maka wrote:
" Also, Apple computers just last longer. Until a couple of years ago I used my old G3 as video recorder at home and it still works fine under os x. This computer now has 10 years."
That's also something I factored into the cost. I bought my original Mac around the same time a friend bought his PC. Mine lasted about a decade as well. Six months after I replaced it, my friend bought a new PC. The difference being it was my second Mac and his fourth PC.

Bullwinkle wrote:
" Notahandle wrote: "Ah yes, the standard line to be repeated until the hard of thinking believe it to be true."
BGG's back up, you know."
Great deadpan delivery! How could we possibly equate T.O.S. with the hard of thinking?
" Macs are great for certain apps, but they simply don't match up in business apps"
See your quote of my quote above. Name a type of business application that's not available on the Mac.
I look at it in this general way: let's use accountancy programs as an example, on a Mac I might have a choice of, say, half a dozen and on a PC let's say several dozen. I might compare all the Mac ones in deciding which program to buy, but I obviously wouldn't on the PC. So in reality what difference does it make?

Ochobee wrote:
" Notahandle wrote: I don't mind paying more..."
Actually I didn't write that.
" A great post on why the Mac vs PC price comparisons are stupid ..."
Hardly great as it says nothing new.

TheDukester wrote:
" Oh, my ... "Macs are spendy." Yeesh. It's not 1997 any more, guys. ... Turn your calendar, guys."
QFT. Even in 1997 that argument wasn't true if you looked into all the factors.

Ochobee wrote:

This is a good list- I would add that the Orange box also comes with Team Fortress 2 which is one of the most pleasurable FPS experiences you will have on your sweet new rig.

Oh, yes! How could I forget this? I don't usually play online, but I tried this and had a blast. In fact...maybe we should get a TF2 F:AT throwdown going on?

Oh, and you must get Dark Messiah of Might and Magic. Best HTH combat I've seen so far.

And in the strategy section, don't miss Galactic Civilizations 2 and the expansions. Great 4X gaming.

Another one I missed. Excellent choice. Also, if you like RTSs, I hear Sins of a Solar Empire is great, too. I haven't tried it yet.

Another I forgot: FREEDOM FORCE! Tactical superhero combat with a Silver Age sense of humour. Awesome.

There's going to be a happy Skeletor in the land down under.

You know, Frank, if you've been out of gaming for a while, there's a whole host of games a few years old that won't show up on the radar that you must still get. Jedi Academy, etc. Your productivity (such as it is) will plummet.

Mr Skeletor wrote:

SHEEELLLLYYYYY
THREAD SPLITING ISN'T WORKING!!!!!

Is that what that was? I thought Maka made a mistake.

Big blocks of text make baby Jesus cry.

Notahandle wrote:

Great deadpan delivery! How could we possibly equate T.O.S. with the hard of thinking?

Actually, it was your superior attitude I was equating. Hard of thinking? Join the Clearclaw-DdJ Twister game.

See your quote of my quote above. Name a type of business application that's not available on the Mac.
I look at it in this general way: let's use accountancy programs as an example, on a Mac I might have a choice of, say, half a dozen and on a PC let's say several dozen. I might compare all the Mac ones in deciding which program to buy, but I obviously wouldn't on the PC. So in reality what difference does it make?

Well, I like having options. And when you want more than one type of thing, like games, you are specifically looking for those options.

Look, this Mac vs PC bullshit annoys me. If you like Macs, that's great. Who gives a fuck? My point is that your choice of system should be entirely dependent on what you want it for. I'm a PC user because what I want most is superior on the PC: games. If I were still in business, I'd still be a PC user, if I were an A/V type, I'd wan't a Mac, and if I were still doing physics, I'd be on a Linux box.

But every time this comes up it's like those pathetic Mac ads. I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC. Oooh, look how cool I am. I'm such an independent thinker. Look how much better I am! It may as well be an ad for Eurogames. Boooooring.

Frank clearly wanted a gaming rig. For people to suggest he get a Mac is missing the point entirely. Why spend more--yes, more--for a clearly inferior product for what you want? That was my only point. Somehow this got derailed into something I do not give a fuck about.

Arguing with Mac owners is like arguing with creationists: neither group responds to evidence.

Notahandle wrote:

Citadel wrote:
"iMac ... £929.00
Dell ... £579"
Just curious, is that the closest or widest in price comparison?

This is for the base system with an upgrade to a 20" monitor with a webcam to make the systems specs the same. The point is that the mac styling and OS do cost. If you want different styling you could choose to buy it with the Dell but most people won't bother.

As for the virus claims, AVG Free is a perfectly effective solution, there are other free anti-virus software available. I imagine most new computers come with a subscription to an anti-virus. I get a Norton subscription from my ISP.

The same is true of the arguement about various cheap or free software you can get for Macs. You can get the same kind of software free for Windows or Linux. Yeah, it might not be as pretty.

Working with Macs in my last work, including iMacs only about a year old, I found that several third party software packages were unstable, especially Adobe products. Compared to on the PC where I rarely see problems.

One things Macs have on PCs is that because they are all built by the same company there are less compatibility issues. Compatability issues only come up very rarely but they are always frustrating. But at the same time that is a strength of the PC: the fact that you do actually have choice.

The comparison quoted is, well, comparing a $3000 Mac to a $4300 PC. Once you get into that price range you have gone beyond what most people spend. At that point my question is how many Mac users would even use that power, games are almost the only thing that would use the power of the absolute top of the line. If you did the comparison today would it be as favourable. The current Mac Pro is running dual QuadCore despite the fact that to my knowledge no application can yet take advantage of QuadCore and the Intel QuadCore chips they use aren't even true QuadCore, they are just dual duo.

I don't think there is anything wrong with buying a Mac. They are just expensive for what you get. If you want to pay for the extra styling, there's nothing wrong with that. Even that article discussing why price comparisons are unfair says PCs are better value and that it is all about if you are willing to pay to have the "cooler" system.

Bullwinkle wrote:

Mr Skeletor wrote:

SHEEELLLLYYYYY
THREAD SPLITING ISN'T WORKING!!!!!

Is that what that was? I thought Maka made a mistake.

The only mistake I made was starting the mac/windows debate again... I do admit that... Edit: But mu suggestion mas legit. Frank wanted a computer both for general use AND play games. My suggestion accommodated both needs because you can install windows on a mac (for the games) while being able to use OS X for other stuff. It really is years ahead of Windows, just try it out. I personally know many people that have recently bought a mac because of the intel switch, and most only switch to Windows if they really have to...

But every time this comes up it's like those pathetic Mac ads. I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC. Oooh, look how cool I am. I'm such an independent thinker. Look how much better I am! It may as well be an ad for Eurogames. Boooooring.

That sounds like an inferiority complex to me Maybe you should really get the mac you seem to be craving for Edit: No one is saying they're cooler because they own a mac. I'm certainly not saying that either, so read what you will from the posts above... BTW, that attitude you mention fits much better with an add for AT games as Euros and Windows seem to be much closer than AT and windows

Bullwinkle wrote:
" Actually, it was your superior attitude I was equating. Hard of thinking? Join the Clearclaw-DdJ Twister game."
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! I was responding to your superior attitude when you said "Don't be sucked in by the cult! Macs are notoriously overpriced for what you get."

" Well, I like having options. And when you want more than one type of thing, like games, you are specifically looking for those options."
I wasn't commenting on your statements regarding games, I was was commenting on your statements regarding business applications. My point was, when the choice becomes larger than approximately half a dozen similar programs, it doesn't really add anything.

" Frank clearly wanted a gaming rig. For people to suggest he get a Mac is missing the point entirely. Why spend more--yes, more--for a clearly inferior product for what you want? That was my only point. Somehow this got derailed into something I do not give a fuck about."
Please read my first post in which I never mentioned that Frank should consider a Mac. I first mentioned them in reply to Shellhead's comments.

b]Citadel wrote:[/b]
" Arguing with Mac owners is like arguing with creationists: neither group responds to evidence. "
With such a "superior attitude" (to quote Bullwinkle) you'll appreciate why I'm reluctant to comment further. However, I did realise earlier that part of the reason there's a greater price difference at the moment is the world economy and price cutting. Apple apparently doesn't see the need to cut prices at the moment, because for the last few years it has been increasing its market share at the expense of PCs. Okay, reading further... The anti-virus and free software isn't something I'd take into account when comparing; what would be relevant to me would be the software I actually want or need (and in Frank's case it's games which generally means you need a top of the range PC).

" Working with Macs in my last work, including iMacs only about a year old, I found that several third party software packages were unstable, especially Adobe products. Compared to on the PC where I rarely see problems."
On the few occasions I've encountered this, it's always been something ported over from a PC. Obviously because the programmers are less familiar with Macs. Hardly unexpected, just something to be aware of.

" The comparison quoted is, well, comparing a $3000 Mac to a $4300 PC. Once you get into that price range you have gone beyond what most people spend. At that point my question is how many Mac users would even use that power, games are almost the only thing that would use the power of the absolute top of the line. If you did the comparison today would it be as favourable. The current Mac Pro is running dual QuadCore despite the fact that to my knowledge no application can yet take advantage of QuadCore and the Intel QuadCore chips they use aren't even true QuadCore, they are just dual duo."
I don't understand how the "iMac ... £929.00 Dell ... £579" relates to your "$3000 Mac to a $4300 PC". To answer how is that level of power used, clearly the major uses are for video on a Mac and for games on a PC. The use of dual duo is transitional as they'll be using true QuadCore soon enough. Regarding "no application can yet take advantage of QuadCore" I read that the next version of OS X (Snow Leopard) will take care of that.

" They are just expensive for what you get. If you want to pay for the extra styling, there's nothing wrong with that. Even that article discussing why price comparisons are unfair says PCs are better value and that it is all about if you are willing to pay to have the "cooler" system."
This is where I disagree. As I said in my first post that mentioned Macs: "Quite a while back when I wanted to change computers I costed Macs and PCs. My conclusion was that I'd spend about the same to do what I wanted; the difference was that for a Mac I'd spend two-thirds on hardware and one-third on software, but vice versa with a PC. I went with the Mac and haven't looked back." The so-called "cooler" system had nothing to do with it. All of the Mac vs PC price comparison articles only do it on the hardware level because it's impersonal. And that's why it's all bullshit. For me that was too simple, I chose to compare the software as well. I realise that most people don't do that. They also don't consider the difficulty of learning the new system, ease of use, how much support they need, etc. When people ask me for advice about which computer to buy, I'll ask about their past experience with them and want they want to do with the new one. Then I taylor my advice on that basis.

ubarose wrote:
" Macs are optimized for multimedia processing. You buy a top of the line Mac if you are setting up a studio to edit video or music. You use them if you need precise color control for pictures and graphics.
Macs are crap for playing games. Most most games won't even run on a Mac that costs less than $2000."
After DTP, multimedia became the next big thing on the Mac. These days more and more is being built into the OS so it's available for all programs. Macs used to be crap for games because the hardware was different; these days if a game requires a high-end Mac then it'll also require a high-end PC, surely? The major reason always was, and still is (though it's getting better) that the games aren't brought out on the Mac.

EDIT- Jeez,I've written a bloody essay on my approach to buying a computer! Yawn!

Bullwinkle wrote:

In fact...maybe we should get a TF2 F:AT throwdown going on?

The Mac-vs-PC thing is a giant yawnfest, but this comment caught my eye. I play TF2 a fair amount, and I'd be fine with adding some F:AT members to my list on Steam.

Sorry boys, but fighting over fucking PC hardware does not get you into thunderdome. It might get you into fairy park where you can tickle each others harddrives with wands or something.

All I know is that Macs are a royal pain in the ass for statistical computing.

JoelCFC25 wrote:
"The Mac-vs-PC thing is a giant yawnfest"
It's just the current flavour of the 'month' - there's always been ComputerX vs ComputerY arguments.

Space Ghost wrote:
"All I know is that Macs are a royal pain in the ass for statistical computing."
Mathematica has been the heavy duty number cruncher for many years. Don't know if it's a pain in the ass though!