What Apple Should I Get?
- Thread starter WayneLigon
- Start date
RyanL
First Post
drothgery said:
That's true, and I realized it right after posting. Nevertheless, if you replace "my existing software" with "the existing catalogue of Mac software", I feel that my point still stands. I think scarcity of software for Intel Macs will be more of an issue than scarcity of software for PowerPC Macs for several years to come. By the time that this situation reverses itself, your computer is obsolete anyway. In conclusion, the coming years will be interesting for Mac owners, but I wouldn't let that deter me from purchasing a Mac now if that were my desire.
Thanks,
Ryan
RyanL said:
If playing games is a primary consideration, then a G5 tower is the only way to go. They are the only macs that have upgradable video cards. Current Top cards for the mac would be a 6800 Ultra or a Radeon XL850. The 6800 is actually listed as a GT, but if you check the clock speeds and such it's really an Ultra. No information yet on the 7800 GTX, but I doubt if you'll see it before they put out the Intel based Towers, since it is going to be a PCIe only card with no AGP version. The consumer macs don't have the greatest video cards built in them, the G5 iMacs have Radeon 9600s and the Mini's have a Radeon 9200.
There are also some classic mac games that you might want to check out that will never be available for OSX and thus will not run on the Intel macs.
You might actually want to look for a used previous version dual 2ghz g5. They have a better motherboard than the current dual G5 2ghz. Though it is unlikely that the higher max ram (8gig vs 4gig) and the PCI-X vs PCI slots will make that much of a difference to you. The presence of PCI-X slots are generally the easiest way to determine the difference between the two.
That said, the Radeon 9700 that is in the current powerbooks seems to be more than adiquate for most of the 3D games out there. You aren't going to get all the bells and whistles at 2048x1568, but 800x600 or so with a good chunk of the eyecandy should be do able. The performance is something close to a Radeon 9800 and definitely better than a Radeon 9600.
As far as purchasing goes. If you go to www.Apple.com/store, that will bring you to the main level where you can pick out and customize the config. Though the min config for a dual g5 2ghz is $2k. On the main level, in the lower right hand corner is a red tag "Sale" sign. This is where they sell refurbed macs. That is where I would go, since you can save several hundred dollars (usually about $300-$500) however, you can't customize what they ship with. But then again, stuff like memory and larger HDs are generally cheaper purchased separately.
These are some other web sites that you might want to look over.
http://lowendmac.com/ppc/g5deals.html
http://dealmac.com/headlines.html
http://www.dealsontheweb.com/index.php?headlines=true&filter=none
You can get a Radeon 9800 Pro for a mac, for about $180 currently. It is not as good as the current top crowd (6800 U, XL850), but they will run you about $500 new.
Laslo Tremaine
Explorer
This strongly bears repeating. If you want a game machine don't even bother buying a Mac. If you want a machine that will let you get day to day work done, then get Mac. Your budget is your constraint.kyloss said:
If you want the best of both worlds, take your budget; put all but US$600 into getting the best PC gaming rig you can. Then take the $500, buy a Mac Mini and spend the remaining $100 on a good KVM switch.
I am very serious about this. I have a nice little Shuttle system that I use exclusively for gaming. I then have a 15" PowerBook that I use for getting work done.
Kesh
First Post
Unfortunately, games are the Mac's weak point. As much as I wish that weren't true... it is.
You have a few options here. For the ultimate Mac gaming system, you need a Powermac + display, which is going to be difficult at $2000 unless you have a display already.
Next best is to get a top of the line iMac G5. It's a decent machine for gaming, but DooM 3 wouldn't be great on it, for instance.
Next, you could wait until the new Intel macs are announced in 2006. There's a possibility that you'll be able to boot into Windows, or run Virtual PC with full access to the video card. It's a bit of a gamble, though, because we have no idea if that would happen.
On the flip side, future game development will be geared towards the Intel Macs. Buy a Mac now, and you'll get the best out of current games and a few years with support from new games. Buy a Mac next year, and current games will run slower (through Rosetta emulation), but new games for the Mac will run their best.
You have a few options here. For the ultimate Mac gaming system, you need a Powermac + display, which is going to be difficult at $2000 unless you have a display already.
Next best is to get a top of the line iMac G5. It's a decent machine for gaming, but DooM 3 wouldn't be great on it, for instance.
Next, you could wait until the new Intel macs are announced in 2006. There's a possibility that you'll be able to boot into Windows, or run Virtual PC with full access to the video card. It's a bit of a gamble, though, because we have no idea if that would happen.
On the flip side, future game development will be geared towards the Intel Macs. Buy a Mac now, and you'll get the best out of current games and a few years with support from new games. Buy a Mac next year, and current games will run slower (through Rosetta emulation), but new games for the Mac will run their best.
Psionicist
Explorer
WayneLigon said:
Apple is a computer brand, Windows is an operating system, so this doesn't make sense - you are comparing a Bang & Olfusen TV with Fox News! If you dislike Windows you have lots of other options such as Linux and BSD that will run on your hardware. Ubuntu is popular today.
Anyhow, just wanted to mention it. There are not just two alternatives you know.
Henry
Autoexreginated
Psionicist said:
It's nice to know City of Heroes and Warcraft run on Ubuntu Linux.
(I'm just kidding, Psi -- but Wayne did say he's looking for games support, and it's really not there for anything BUT the Mac and the PC.)
WayneLigon said:
If you're looking at these and at playing the latest games at the time they are released, then a Windows based PC is still your best bet, because that's where the development goes first.
You COULD go with a linux-flavor or other OS and run a Windows emulator if you want the stability along with the games, however I'm still not aware of a Windows emulator that will run 99% of the packages out there either quickly, or without trouble.
James Heard
Explorer
When choosing Macs I've always noticed that color seems to be a primary consideration, and how different it looks. Buy a Mac to do graphics and stuff like that, for games buy a cheap PC, an expensive video card, and all the RAM you can afford with what's left over. You can put the Mac out where it can match the sofa and impress your company, and you can hide your PC gaming machine in the closet like a dirty little secret.
Psionicist said:
Linux has made substantial strides in usability, but it's still far from a plug and play system that you don't need to worry about. A mac is going to be far less hassle than any of the other unix derivatives would be.
Also let's not make too much of the mac's "weakness" with regards to games. In my experience 95% of the top games will get ported to the mac. Mind you in some cases you are talking years later, but most are within a few months if there is any delay at all. However, long it takes a good game is a good game. I'd still rather play Myth or Myth II : Soulblighter than any RTS I've seen come out in the past 8 years and they still have by far the best online multiplayer play of any games I've seen.
If you are really looking for bang for your buck in playing games, a PS2 will cost you less than a decent graphics cards and have a wide range of games that will never show up on PCs.
Similar Threads
