I'm off to buy a PC
Reply 21 of 38
January 7, 2002 3:11PM
The reason people like to get extremly high framerates in games like Quake and Unreal Tournamnet is because when you get more than a tiny handful of characters on the screen the FPS can easily drop from extremly high to borderline slideshow and the extra FPS act as a buffer to prevent that.
[quote]Dude I think I'm gettin a Dell. "shocking" is the only word that describes it. I don't know what I'm going to do know. But I do know that for the first time ever, a PC is a possibility for me<hr></blockquote>
Reply 22 of 38
January 7, 2002 3:35PM
[quote]Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
<strong>The reason people like to get extremly high framerates in games like Quake and Unreal Tournamnet is because when you get more than a tiny handful of characters on the screen the FPS can easily drop from extremly high to borderline slideshow and the extra FPS act as a buffer to prevent that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So the idea is to have a machine capable of 200+ FPS so that even in the middle of an insane melee, you never drop below 60 FPS? That actually makes sense.
I remember when Doom level editors first came out, and one of the first levels I designed was a massive, arena-like room with hundreds of monsters and weapons and ammo all over the place. It was fun, but it REALLLLY bogged down on my old 486!
Reply 23 of 38
January 7, 2002 3:39PM
I dunno, I'm a gamer, web designer, do some graphics designing, programming, and just an overall geek, and the iMac looks perfect to me..
So, who cares if I Dreamweaver takes a few seconds longer to pop up..
Over 100fps is good enough for me.
[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: iDogcow ]</p>
Reply 24 of 38
mac the fork
January 7, 2002 3:51PM
I'm off to keep using my PC until revision B. The new iMac didn't blow me away, but it made me want to buy one eventually. Damn money.
Reply 25 of 38
January 7, 2002 4:33PM
Mr. Fork: it's often a good idea to wait for the kinks to be worked out in the new hardware anyway.
Reply 26 of 38
January 7, 2002 4:35PM
Why hype something that's not worth it?
Reply 27 of 38
January 7, 2002 4:39PM
Gee, maybe they hyped it because this is likely to be one of the best-selling and best-rated and best-loved computers in the entire industry in the next couple of years (at least).
Reply 28 of 38
January 7, 2002 4:44PM
What do you want dstranathan? Someone to beg you not to go buy a PC? Or do you just want the attention?
You've gotten the attention....
And I really doubt you
that stuff. But if it makes you feel cool to have it, knock yourself out.
And please take BuonRotto's advice and take a couple of the others with you. It gets old hearing these supposed "threats of desertion" all the time.
Reply 29 of 38
January 7, 2002 4:50PM
[quote]Originally posted by koldolme:
It's probably something like 200fps more....
With a 2Ghz P4 you can easily get 400+ fps in q3</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which means ABSOLUTLY nothing because the human eye can't even percieve a difference in more than what? 60 fps? so probably 60-80 I'd say is all you need, and the current pmacs can do 50-80 or so in some or most games, basically the only reasons for wanting a pc are about 12 games...probably less, the whole mac-pc software issue, has tottally turned around, all the best pc games are on mac(except counterstrike) and all the professional and consumer software thats on pc is on mac as well(except for a few 3-d programs)
basically what pcs have that macs don't is, thousands and thousands of crappy shareware and/or really cheap software packs that all do the same thing(mp3 players, video players, word processing...etc)
the more I look at it, the more I realize that oing PC NOW is REALLY bad, because almost every developing company is in AWE of OS X, and all the time more and more games and software apps are being developed for X, furthermore, bill gates is doing everything in his power to get less games released on PC instead diverting them all to X-box, the future of computing is Macintosh, I am utterly confidant in this, sure you can go on and on and on about MHZ and system bus and ram....etc etc etc blah blah blah, but the PC is dying, its been dying, whereas themac is slowly and steadily gaining more and more, in ten years I wager that apple will have more than 30% of the PC market...thats my optimist side after seeing the new iMac at least
wrong robot will NEVER switch to PC because there is no reason to, when his mac does everything he needs a computer to do(at least everything for now)
Reply 30 of 38
January 7, 2002 4:51PM
I hear a lot of people say "I really want Apple to release a 2ghz CPU because Intel has one," and that's just a meaningless argument.
If you're doing 3D work, or multi-track digital audio processing, or something else that requires serious, massive processor power, then by all means maybe you DO need that kind of CPU power.
But I think 90% of the people talking about how "slow" a dual 800mhz G4 is, couldn't tell a 2ghz G4 from a dual 800mhz G4 if they sat down in front of both of them and ran the standard "Internet Explorer & Mail & I-Tunes & chat client" software set most of them use.
It's more about bragging rights and cool specification to talk to the other doodz about, most of the time.
Reply 31 of 38
January 7, 2002 5:02PM
Guess a lot of us were a little blurry eyed from the leak last night or were watching the blocky keynote video today on a 56 kb modem connection. But if you were looking carefully...
All the demos (Maya, Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, iApps and that Math program) were done on stage with (probably) Pro Desktops (under the table?) running OS X. Shit, if George Lucas is using G4 Pros with OS X then I'd be doing the same...almost a non issue...
Reply 32 of 38
January 7, 2002 5:08PM
[quote]The reason people like to get extremly high framerates in games like Quake and Unreal Tournamnet is because when you get more than a tiny handful of characters on the screen the FPS can easily drop from extremly high to borderline slideshow and the extra FPS act as a buffer to prevent that.<hr></blockquote>
As well as the fact that more and more demanding games are released all the time.
GeForce2MX will handle Quake III just fine, but what about half a year from now when Wolfenstein, Doom, and the new EQ or whatever come out? High fps is essential. True, the eye can only see so much, but I would like it to never catch a glitch now or six months from now when I am playing.
anyhoo, back on topic, my iMac is suiting me pretty well. I would like a faster computer, but, well, whatever.
On a related note, would we be complaining about clock speed this much if Intel was pretty much equivalent to us in clock? Would you
a 2GHz machine if the fastest available on any platform was 900 MHz?
I remember back when 200MHz was a big deal. Did you
2GHz back then?
Reply 33 of 38
January 7, 2002 5:14PM
It's not just speed but also cost. You can get a faster PeeCee for less. Sometimes a lot less.
Reply 34 of 38
January 7, 2002 5:24PM
[quote]Originally posted by breakskull:
<strong>If your a big time hard core gamer, you live for gaming, the iMac isn't going to cut it, no. If you use your machine to do work in general, I can't think of a machine I'd rather spend hours with than the silky quiet iMac. That includes the Pro line power macs. I have a PC "game" box that I put together myself: Athlon 1.6GHz, 1Gig PC2100 RAM, Nvidia GeForce 3 64MB... you get the picture. In order to keep it running cool, it has enough fans to power a Blackhawk. I've gotten so use to the iMac's relative lack of noise that I will gladly give up fps rates and high display resolutions for the "still not state of the art power specs" of the new iMac. My two cents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Breakskull, do you have any good pointers to online info on getting started with DIY PC? I'd love to do what you've done. Am not abandoning the Mac, just want to build a fast 3D and video processor for the least money possible.
Reply 35 of 38
January 7, 2002 5:42PM
Cost? $1799 for a G4 800mhz with superdrive and 15" LCD is expensive? hahahaha
Please, if you want to play games get a console, if you want a computer get the new iMac. If you do graphics and video and animation, wait a few weeks for the towers.
Back on topic-
See ya! Wouldn't want to be ya! Have fun in M$ hell, haha
Reply 36 of 38
January 7, 2002 5:48PM
[quote]Which means ABSOLUTLY nothing because the human eye can't even percieve a difference in more than what? 60 fps? so probably 60-80 I'd say is all you need, and the current pmacs can do 50-80 or so in some or most games, <hr></blockquote>
Read my last post.
You obviously missed it.
[quote]basically the only reasons for wanting a pc are about 12 games...probably less,<hr></blockquote>
[quote]As well as the fact that more and more demanding games are released all the time.
GeForce2MX will handle Quake III just fine, but what about half a year from now when Wolfenstein, Doom, and the new EQ or whatever come out? High fps is essential. True, the eye can only see so much, but I would like it to never catch a glitch now or six months from now when I am playing.<hr></blockquote>
John Carmack has said that Doom 3 will not run on anything less than a Geeforce 3.
The iMacs are simply not future-proof.
And look at what Apple did with the Rage 128. Kept it in the iMacs from 1999 to 2002, while PCs rocketed ahead speedwise.
Reply 37 of 38
January 7, 2002 6:12PM
Dont buy a package, make your own. If you dont make your own your wasting your money, Apples computers are about the same price/performance as the major companies.
Reply 38 of 38
January 7, 2002 10:24PM
geezer1, here's a couple of links of where I picked up a lot of info:
Most of AI's veterans are familiar with a few of these sites.
Also, Leo LaPort on Microsoft, Err, TechTV.com just put out a DIY book. He's good and he's a Mac lover too. Good luck.
After an hour on the "box", I'm always ready to come back to my iMac!