The ASUS motherboard pictured shows what annoys me about Apple. That motherboard has:
Display Port
HDMI
VGA
DVI
6 USB
eSATA
5 Internal SATA
PATA
4 ram slots
optical audio
PCI
and probably runs less than $200.
To get the same amount of configureability in a Mac there is nothing other than the Mac Pro at $2500+. Yes the Mini is a great computer, I own one, but I also would like a Mac that I can throw a few hard drives in along with a full sized optical drive and a "real" desktop processor. Regardless of what el Jobso says a desktop processor IS faster and cheaper. The article makes a good point that Apple only uses Intel's laptop and server offerings and has yet to make a computer designed to handle the desktop TDP. An Apple desktop using commodity hardware would sell like hotcakes in the enterprise and to the computer tinkers. Psystar is a start but not a truly viable option or really all that great of a value.
It's about time Apple recognized that people with enough disposable income who want to own high-end, reliable computers is so they can play more games and consume all of their leisure time.
What about the business user demographic? They just need a reliable notebook.
Seeing that all Intel iMacs to date seem to have used mobile Intel CPUs, unless Apple decides to switch to desktop CPUs, they won't be using the desktop versions of the Geforce 9400. I don't actually think that Apple will won't to sole source on nVidia. Even if they go with the mobile 9400M in the iMac they'll probably stick to ATI GPUs.
nVidia was always quoting Apple's implementation of the 9400M to be different than what nVidia will be selling to other OEMs. And nVidia confirms that Apple's implementation doesn't support Hybrid SLI. I have a feeling that what makes Apple's implementation unique is that they dropped Hybrid SLI in exchange for making the dynamic integrated to discrete GPU switching technology work with any GPU so that they can stick with the 9400M to satisfy nVidia but can choose to use either ATI or nVidia discrete GPUs.
You can run a Mobile CPU on a desktop chipset no problem. I think the nVidia chipsets WILL be used in iMac's however I think they'll use the latter model explained. The first 9300 will most certainly be headed to the AppleTV and MacMini.
Riiiight! I'll believe when when I see it. SJ said the same thing when Bungie introduced Halo for the Mac at the NY MW Expo, I believe it was 1999. It's been 9 years. This is very typical of Apple, they've been doing this forever, they talk about games then nothing happens!
Besides Apple does not have a Mac where one can exchange the video card with a better one, all their affordable desktops use laptop grade mobos and those are not good for hardcore gaming.
The formula is simple, wanna get into gaming and make a dent in sales for main-stream business, bring out a mid-tower.
Riiiight! I'll believe when when I see it. SJ said the same thing when Bungie introduced Halo for the Mac at the NY MW Expo, I believe it was 1999. It's been 9 years. This is very typical of Apple, they've been doing this forever, they talk about games then nothing happens!
Besides Apple does not have a Mac where one can exchange the video card with a better one, all their affordable desktops use laptop grade mobos and those are not good for hardcore gaming.
The formula is simple, wanna get into gaming and make a dent in sales for main-stream business, bring out a mid-tower.
They have the platform for it. Trouble is it takes something like 100 people to develop the big name games. So that's retraining those people onto Xcode's layout and Objective-C.
Rather Apple does have OpenGL/AL and coming soon to a finder near you CL.
If I were an investor and wanted to play a part in Gaming on the Mac I'd start with a small company with less than 10 people. I'd probably keep the first 2 years releases on Both platforms then dump the windows side entirely and offer up the only reason as "Mac is better and easier for us to develop on" statement. I would probably use a dual platform game IDE as well something like Tourque game builder system. AND if I had some friends who were into gaming and Mac's I'd probably look at starting a small partnership with them working on weekends or over the web on creating games on that platform asn TGB's pricing for Indie's is perfect.
That's just me... A guy who doesn't play games and when he does (FLAM SUIT ON) is on a Sonly Playstation hooked to my Mac Mini powered Home theater (that's the 1st gen, grey sled not the nice White one from 98').
Apple, Inc. should play NO PART aside from the groundwork fundamentals for the Mac Platform for the aspect of games and that's it.
I guess you never used an iMac before for play. I use my iMac for play CoD4, Comand & Conquers and CMR. I pwned so many PC dudes over CoD4 and my iMac has only 4gb ram and the Ati card with 256 mb.
Also that GPU could be used on a Mac Mini with great success. I guess that a lot of people will be happy with that potential.
A mini upgrade would be very nice, as long as it doesn't drop the Firewire port. My aging PPC mini hosts all my backup disks, music, and video storage; and half of those drives are FW-only! Unlike the Macbook where you can move up to the MBP, the next step up for the mini is the Mac Pro. And that won't fit behind my plasma TV!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNipponese
lets be real here guys. what motivation do publishers have to release their games on OSX unless it's a guaranteed mega-hit like COD4? windows still has 90% marketshare, and that's not changing anytime soon.
What percentage of that 90% is for business users? I don't have a clue, but I assume that takes a pretty big chunk out of the potential customer pool. So it's less a 9-to-1 customer base advantage for PC games and maybe more like 5-to-1. Still a big difference, but the spread might not be as big as we think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ByronVanArsdale
What I'm curious about is with the move to Intel, why develop Mac games at all? I admittedly do not know how well COD4, etc. games run on Mac computers running XP/Vista work. Can you run a PC title using XP/Vista on an Intel Mac with any luck or does Parallels/Bootcamp make it impossible?
I think (?) the newer versions of Parallels and/or VMWare now support hardware acceleration for video, don't they? Bootcamp would work fine. But then you still have to pony up another $300 for a copy of Windows. Are you going to pay $350 to play a $50 game?
[QUOTE=Wiggin;1327820]A mini upgrade would be very nice, as long as it doesn't drop the Firewire port. My aging PPC mini hosts all my backup disks, music, and video storage; and half of those drives are FW-only! Unlike the Macbook where you can move up to the MBP, the next step up for the mini is the Mac Pro. And that won't fit behind my plasma TV!
As for how Apple embraced Nvidia 9400 and the news today of the desktop version of those chips I have to say that my bet is that they (Apple) will use indeed those chips cause they support their new LED display and they have to expand that new format across the desktop consumer line (Mac Minis/iMacs)
I guess there will be a lot more people pissed at Apple but they will follow this tendency, you can have no doubt about it. \
NVIDIA says the single-chip design has a much smaller footprint than competing chipsets, making it ideal for small form factor and ultra-slim media center PCs.
I don't think the Mini needs to be any smaller than it currently is so if they put one of those chipsets in, keep firewire, add an option for a fast HD, you've got a great all round desktop computer, which I will be buying.
One thing I don't quite get about the iMac is why they keep updating them so often and not the Mini? I understand that the Mini is less profitable so they will want to sell older hardware longer but who is upgrading iMacs every 6-12 months?
The people I know with iMacs have had theirs for 2 years or more and have no desire to upgrade, especially not to the newest model.
I on the other hand would quite happily put down the cost of a Mini every 6 months (selling the old one of course) if they kept the updates coming - they're so easy to replace. If they made the hard drive easy to remove, I could just pull it out and switch it with the blank one in a new machine. Since the original dual core Mini, there has been almost no reason at all to upgrade, which is why they won't sell so many.
I don't think the Mini needs to be any smaller than it currently is so if they put one of those chipsets in, keep firewire, add an option for a fast HD, you've got a great all round desktop computer, which I will be buying.
One thing I don't quite get about the iMac is why they keep updating them so often and not the Mini? I understand that the Mini is less profitable so they will want to sell older hardware longer but who is upgrading iMacs every 6-12 months?
The people I know with iMacs have had theirs for 2 years or more and have no desire to upgrade, especially not to the newest model.
I on the other hand would quite happily put down the cost of a Mini every 6 months (selling the old one of course) if they kept the updates coming - they're so easy to replace. If they made the hard drive easy to remove, I could just pull it out and switch it with the blank one in a new machine. Since the original dual core Mini, there has been almost no reason at all to upgrade, which is why they won't sell so many.
Mac Minis have been quite close to end of live so many times the last year and half. If it survive the next november it will get updates to match the entire line and support Snow Leopard.
The iMac uses notebook parts (other than its HD) so the only GPU heading to the iMac is a mobile one.
If Apple wants to stick with the tradition of using GPUs from both ATI and nVidia that retail for $80-100 in the Windows world, we can expect to see the Radeon 2600 replaced with a Radeon 4650.
If Apple chooses to dump ATI this time we're likely to see a base iMac with an integrated 9400M, mid range iMacs with the 9400 and 9600 just like the MacBook Pro, and a high end iMac with both 9400 and 9800.
The problem Apple and nVidia need to overcome is truly pathetic Core Image performance. The lowly Radeon 2600 is substantially faster than the 8800GS found in the most expensive iMac.
The Mac Mini has always been overpriced because it's a custom design. If the very first Mini had been a bit larger it could have used the iBook motherboard and thus cost a lot less money to produce.
I think the time is right for the Mini to be replaced by a Mac Nano that is a MacBook minus display, keyboard and battery. Production cost would go down, performance would go up and everyone would be happy.
They have the platform for it. Trouble is it takes something like 100 people to develop the big name games. So that's retraining those people onto Xcode's layout and Objective-C.
Rather Apple does have OpenGL/AL and coming soon to a finder near you CL.
If I were an investor and wanted to play a part in Gaming on the Mac I'd start with a small company with less than 10 people. I'd probably keep the first 2 years releases on Both platforms then dump the windows side entirely and offer up the only reason as "Mac is better and easier for us to develop on" statement. I would probably use a dual platform game IDE as well something like Tourque game builder system. AND if I had some friends who were into gaming and Mac's I'd probably look at starting a small partnership with them working on weekends or over the web on creating games on that platform asn TGB's pricing for Indie's is perfect.
That's just me... A guy who doesn't play games and when he does (FLAM SUIT ON) is on a Sonly Playstation hooked to my Mac Mini powered Home theater (that's the 1st gen, grey sled not the nice White one from 98').
Apple, Inc. should play NO PART aside from the groundwork fundamentals for the Mac Platform for the aspect of games and that's it.
I'm not a hardcore gamer, I prefer the simple mind-numbing pacman style classics. However, it's been disappointing to those who are hardcore gamers.
Bungie was a Mac only developer, one of the best ones out there with about 10 developers or so, but after repeated disappointments by Apple they thew in the towel. Many game developers have been vocal about Apple's empty promises when it came to gaming.
I plan on buying a new 24", or whatever is largest, of the iMacs when the new ones are released.
I only do two things on my home computer, since I sit in front of one all day.
I edit photos from my side photography gig using Photoshop and Lightroom, and I am sadly, according to my wife, a World of Warcraft addict.
With all this talk about the nVidia boards, and Mac gaming "maybe" making a comeback, will the current iMacs and any new ones be decent for the tasks listed above?
I currently use a G4 Dual 1GHz 1.75g of ram, and a 256mg ATI video card. I can play WoW, but cant do 25 man raids because of lag.
The Mac Mini has always been overpriced because it's a custom design. If the very first Mini had been a bit larger it could have used the iBook motherboard and thus cost a lot less money to produce.
I think the time is right for the Mini to be replaced by a Mac Nano that is a MacBook minus display, keyboard and battery. Production cost would go down, performance would go up and everyone would be happy.
Or if the new NVIDIA integrated chip allows them to make the mother board smaller maybe they could make room for a desktop hard drive which would be both faster and cheaper. They could share the motherboard design with the MB Air, that's pretty small, isn't it?
Oh, and if a DisplayPort can support HDCP over a DisplayPort-to-HDMI cable and Apple then starts renting HD movies via iTunes instead of only on AppleTV.... but I guess I'm getting a little ahead of myself...
I think the article means 9300 and 9400 *chipsets* in the new iMacs. These would still have discreet GPUS which are more powerful. Meaning 9600 GT in lower end iMacs and 9800 GT in higer end iMacs. IMO.
Macworld Jan 2009 may introduce some sort of hybrid Mac Mini + AppleTV device!!! Wouldn't that blow people's mind and bring Switching to levels never seen before...???? Imagine if it can play the latest PC games at medium levels (using 9400M or 9400).
Comments
Display Port
HDMI
VGA
DVI
6 USB
eSATA
5 Internal SATA
PATA
4 ram slots
optical audio
PCI
and probably runs less than $200.
To get the same amount of configureability in a Mac there is nothing other than the Mac Pro at $2500+. Yes the Mini is a great computer, I own one, but I also would like a Mac that I can throw a few hard drives in along with a full sized optical drive and a "real" desktop processor. Regardless of what el Jobso says a desktop processor IS faster and cheaper. The article makes a good point that Apple only uses Intel's laptop and server offerings and has yet to make a computer designed to handle the desktop TDP. An Apple desktop using commodity hardware would sell like hotcakes in the enterprise and to the computer tinkers. Psystar is a start but not a truly viable option or really all that great of a value.
It's about time Apple recognized that people with enough disposable income who want to own high-end, reliable computers is so they can play more games and consume all of their leisure time.
What about the business user demographic? They just need a reliable notebook.
__________________
--
-BTW: Could this challenge to Nvidia somehow be related to an xMac?
...hope springs eternal
Seeing that all Intel iMacs to date seem to have used mobile Intel CPUs, unless Apple decides to switch to desktop CPUs, they won't be using the desktop versions of the Geforce 9400. I don't actually think that Apple will won't to sole source on nVidia. Even if they go with the mobile 9400M in the iMac they'll probably stick to ATI GPUs.
nVidia was always quoting Apple's implementation of the 9400M to be different than what nVidia will be selling to other OEMs. And nVidia confirms that Apple's implementation doesn't support Hybrid SLI. I have a feeling that what makes Apple's implementation unique is that they dropped Hybrid SLI in exchange for making the dynamic integrated to discrete GPU switching technology work with any GPU so that they can stick with the 9400M to satisfy nVidia but can choose to use either ATI or nVidia discrete GPUs.
You can run a Mobile CPU on a desktop chipset no problem. I think the nVidia chipsets WILL be used in iMac's however I think they'll use the latter model explained. The first 9300 will most certainly be headed to the AppleTV and MacMini.
In support of Mac gaming
Riiiight! I'll believe when when I see it. SJ said the same thing when Bungie introduced Halo for the Mac at the NY MW Expo, I believe it was 1999. It's been 9 years. This is very typical of Apple, they've been doing this forever, they talk about games then nothing happens!
Besides Apple does not have a Mac where one can exchange the video card with a better one, all their affordable desktops use laptop grade mobos and those are not good for hardcore gaming.
The formula is simple, wanna get into gaming and make a dent in sales for main-stream business, bring out a mid-tower.
A "pro" using USB2 and MobileMe to handle FCP Suite's files?
How high are you right now? Have you ever used any of the things you mentioned?
Stick to bragging about how you "pwned" your fellow nerds in WOW...
One person's Defenition of "pro" is another's amateur. Let it go at that.
Like I said before it's NOT the equipment but how you use it that MAKES YOU A PRO.
And anyone who is capable of the reply to this using those services which he/she already has without having to think is, in my book, a pro.
Riiiight! I'll believe when when I see it. SJ said the same thing when Bungie introduced Halo for the Mac at the NY MW Expo, I believe it was 1999. It's been 9 years. This is very typical of Apple, they've been doing this forever, they talk about games then nothing happens!
Besides Apple does not have a Mac where one can exchange the video card with a better one, all their affordable desktops use laptop grade mobos and those are not good for hardcore gaming.
The formula is simple, wanna get into gaming and make a dent in sales for main-stream business, bring out a mid-tower.
They have the platform for it. Trouble is it takes something like 100 people to develop the big name games. So that's retraining those people onto Xcode's layout and Objective-C.
Rather Apple does have OpenGL/AL and coming soon to a finder near you CL.
If I were an investor and wanted to play a part in Gaming on the Mac I'd start with a small company with less than 10 people. I'd probably keep the first 2 years releases on Both platforms then dump the windows side entirely and offer up the only reason as "Mac is better and easier for us to develop on" statement. I would probably use a dual platform game IDE as well something like Tourque game builder system. AND if I had some friends who were into gaming and Mac's I'd probably look at starting a small partnership with them working on weekends or over the web on creating games on that platform asn TGB's pricing for Indie's is perfect.
That's just me... A guy who doesn't play games and when he does (FLAM SUIT ON) is on a Sonly Playstation hooked to my Mac Mini powered Home theater (that's the 1st gen, grey sled not the nice White one from 98').
Apple, Inc. should play NO PART aside from the groundwork fundamentals for the Mac Platform for the aspect of games and that's it.
One person's Defenition of "pro" is another's amateur. Let it go at that.
Like I said before it's NOT the equipment but how you use it that MAKES YOU A PRO.
And anyone who is capable of the reply to this using those services which he/she already has without having to think is, in my book, a pro.
It doesn't look like they understand, but you nailed as it is.
Have a good day
I guess you never used an iMac before for play. I use my iMac for play CoD4, Comand & Conquers and CMR. I pwned so many PC dudes over CoD4 and my iMac has only 4gb ram and the Ati card with 256 mb.
Also that GPU could be used on a Mac Mini with great success. I guess that a lot of people will be happy with that potential.
A mini upgrade would be very nice, as long as it doesn't drop the Firewire port. My aging PPC mini hosts all my backup disks, music, and video storage; and half of those drives are FW-only! Unlike the Macbook where you can move up to the MBP, the next step up for the mini is the Mac Pro. And that won't fit behind my plasma TV!
lets be real here guys. what motivation do publishers have to release their games on OSX unless it's a guaranteed mega-hit like COD4? windows still has 90% marketshare, and that's not changing anytime soon.
I think your best bet is this CrossOvers thing:
http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxgames/
What percentage of that 90% is for business users? I don't have a clue, but I assume that takes a pretty big chunk out of the potential customer pool. So it's less a 9-to-1 customer base advantage for PC games and maybe more like 5-to-1. Still a big difference, but the spread might not be as big as we think.
What I'm curious about is with the move to Intel, why develop Mac games at all? I admittedly do not know how well COD4, etc. games run on Mac computers running XP/Vista work. Can you run a PC title using XP/Vista on an Intel Mac with any luck or does Parallels/Bootcamp make it impossible?
I think (?) the newer versions of Parallels and/or VMWare now support hardware acceleration for video, don't they? Bootcamp would work fine. But then you still have to pony up another $300 for a copy of Windows. Are you going to pay $350 to play a $50 game?
As for how Apple embraced Nvidia 9400 and the news today of the desktop version of those chips I have to say that my bet is that they (Apple) will use indeed those chips cause they support their new LED display and they have to expand that new format across the desktop consumer line (Mac Minis/iMacs)
I guess there will be a lot more people pissed at Apple but they will follow this tendency, you can have no doubt about it.
NVIDIA says the single-chip design has a much smaller footprint than competing chipsets, making it ideal for small form factor and ultra-slim media center PCs.
I don't think the Mini needs to be any smaller than it currently is so if they put one of those chipsets in, keep firewire, add an option for a fast HD, you've got a great all round desktop computer, which I will be buying.
One thing I don't quite get about the iMac is why they keep updating them so often and not the Mini? I understand that the Mini is less profitable so they will want to sell older hardware longer but who is upgrading iMacs every 6-12 months?
The people I know with iMacs have had theirs for 2 years or more and have no desire to upgrade, especially not to the newest model.
I on the other hand would quite happily put down the cost of a Mini every 6 months (selling the old one of course) if they kept the updates coming - they're so easy to replace. If they made the hard drive easy to remove, I could just pull it out and switch it with the blank one in a new machine. Since the original dual core Mini, there has been almost no reason at all to upgrade, which is why they won't sell so many.
I don't think the Mini needs to be any smaller than it currently is so if they put one of those chipsets in, keep firewire, add an option for a fast HD, you've got a great all round desktop computer, which I will be buying.
One thing I don't quite get about the iMac is why they keep updating them so often and not the Mini? I understand that the Mini is less profitable so they will want to sell older hardware longer but who is upgrading iMacs every 6-12 months?
The people I know with iMacs have had theirs for 2 years or more and have no desire to upgrade, especially not to the newest model.
I on the other hand would quite happily put down the cost of a Mini every 6 months (selling the old one of course) if they kept the updates coming - they're so easy to replace. If they made the hard drive easy to remove, I could just pull it out and switch it with the blank one in a new machine. Since the original dual core Mini, there has been almost no reason at all to upgrade, which is why they won't sell so many.
Mac Minis have been quite close to end of live so many times the last year and half. If it survive the next november it will get updates to match the entire line and support Snow Leopard.
If Apple wants to stick with the tradition of using GPUs from both ATI and nVidia that retail for $80-100 in the Windows world, we can expect to see the Radeon 2600 replaced with a Radeon 4650.
If Apple chooses to dump ATI this time we're likely to see a base iMac with an integrated 9400M, mid range iMacs with the 9400 and 9600 just like the MacBook Pro, and a high end iMac with both 9400 and 9800.
The problem Apple and nVidia need to overcome is truly pathetic Core Image performance. The lowly Radeon 2600 is substantially faster than the 8800GS found in the most expensive iMac.
I think the time is right for the Mini to be replaced by a Mac Nano that is a MacBook minus display, keyboard and battery. Production cost would go down, performance would go up and everyone would be happy.
They have the platform for it. Trouble is it takes something like 100 people to develop the big name games. So that's retraining those people onto Xcode's layout and Objective-C.
Rather Apple does have OpenGL/AL and coming soon to a finder near you CL.
If I were an investor and wanted to play a part in Gaming on the Mac I'd start with a small company with less than 10 people. I'd probably keep the first 2 years releases on Both platforms then dump the windows side entirely and offer up the only reason as "Mac is better and easier for us to develop on" statement. I would probably use a dual platform game IDE as well something like Tourque game builder system. AND if I had some friends who were into gaming and Mac's I'd probably look at starting a small partnership with them working on weekends or over the web on creating games on that platform asn TGB's pricing for Indie's is perfect.
That's just me... A guy who doesn't play games and when he does (FLAM SUIT ON) is on a Sonly Playstation hooked to my Mac Mini powered Home theater (that's the 1st gen, grey sled not the nice White one from 98').
Apple, Inc. should play NO PART aside from the groundwork fundamentals for the Mac Platform for the aspect of games and that's it.
I'm not a hardcore gamer, I prefer the simple mind-numbing pacman style classics. However, it's been disappointing to those who are hardcore gamers.
Bungie was a Mac only developer, one of the best ones out there with about 10 developers or so, but after repeated disappointments by Apple they thew in the towel. Many game developers have been vocal about Apple's empty promises when it came to gaming.
First time poster here. Been lurking for years.
I plan on buying a new 24", or whatever is largest, of the iMacs when the new ones are released.
I only do two things on my home computer, since I sit in front of one all day.
I edit photos from my side photography gig using Photoshop and Lightroom, and I am sadly, according to my wife, a World of Warcraft addict.
With all this talk about the nVidia boards, and Mac gaming "maybe" making a comeback, will the current iMacs and any new ones be decent for the tasks listed above?
I currently use a G4 Dual 1GHz 1.75g of ram, and a 256mg ATI video card. I can play WoW, but cant do 25 man raids because of lag.
Thoughts?
Help a new poster!
The Mac Mini has always been overpriced because it's a custom design. If the very first Mini had been a bit larger it could have used the iBook motherboard and thus cost a lot less money to produce.
I think the time is right for the Mini to be replaced by a Mac Nano that is a MacBook minus display, keyboard and battery. Production cost would go down, performance would go up and everyone would be happy.
Or if the new NVIDIA integrated chip allows them to make the mother board smaller maybe they could make room for a desktop hard drive which would be both faster and cheaper. They could share the motherboard design with the MB Air, that's pretty small, isn't it?
Oh, and if a DisplayPort can support HDCP over a DisplayPort-to-HDMI cable and Apple then starts renting HD movies via iTunes instead of only on AppleTV.... but I guess I'm getting a little ahead of myself...
Seeing as how a Blu-ray/HD DVD combo drive is $124 and the HTPC cases are
looking better and better it makes sense for me to build a beefy system around
these highly integrated motherboards.
I'm not a big gamer but it wouldn't hurt to do a little gaming on a HDTV and be able to
access the internet and other stuff.