"All PC Games Run On Macs." What?

[viranimus]

Ok clarifications, though I doubt they are needed now.

A: it is very possible in any configuration to have 5gb of ram. 1 DIMM filled with a 4gb stick + 1 DIMM filled with 1gb stick, Ram sticks do not exactly have to match capacity so long as they fit the DIMM.

B: A macintosh system could be booted into Windows. There is also possible to run Windows Via virtualization, and im not entirely certain but I think MAC can also Run WINE, but it is absolutely not native support.

C: You can put together a gameable computer for less than 600$. Obviously it wont be the best thing in the world, but it will run games like Batman Arkham Asylum respectably.

D: Whats the purpose of overpaying for MAC hardware, when you can virtualize OS/X. Even 10.7 lion


So yes, a lot of misinformed tripe going on. Though the one factor you point to as tripe, is actually possible.

 

[Owen Robertson]

There's a chance he meant that all games are made ON Macs, because coding and programming in Java, or C++ sucks the big one.

 

[blaquenoise]

first off a good-enough gaming pc does NOT cost $3000 there are tons of youtubers that made a great rig under the 500$ (NCIX channel).
And now to the central point:
your friends dad is talking out of his a--! every line he said is false, games are still built for the pc and somtimes it can be ported to a mac and 5 more Gigs is just stupid(ram exits in even numers).

Ram doesn't have to run in even numbers. As long as you start in the right module first then you are OK. I have two computers that I rebuilt one running on 7gb (max of 8gb), and one running on 3gb (max of 4gb). They run fine. The 7 runs XP. While the 3 run Windows 7 Ultimate. As long as the main first two ram modules (1,2) have the same memory slot (3,4,5,6) can have smaller values. They just can't exceed what you have in slot 1 and 2.
ex: if you have 1gb cards in 1-2 3-4 can't be 2gb cards. You ever wondered why they are color coded? Now granted not all motherboards work this way, but most do. It's really all about how you get the set pieces to work.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

You're doing something majorly wrong if a gaming rig would cost you 3000.
These days you shouldn't spend more than 1500.
Anything more and you're just chasing benchmarks.

I personally spent 1100 USD on a gaming rig two and a half years ago and it still plays anything I put into it quite well. And, to be even more fair a great deal of that was spent on a case and the monitor.

But to the greater question, yes a Mac can quite generally play most games. There is a fairly large caveat to that of course as it assumes you're willing to go through the effort to load alternate operating systems and whatnot. These days, there is not a lot of hardware distinction between a PC and a Mac. And, just because one can make it work, does not mean it will be easy or that it will run particularly well once you get it to happen. As a rule I'd go so far to say that playing most games is harder on a Mac than a PC.

 

[MarlonBlazed]

I don't get it, some of you guys are saying your proud that apple encourages you to run there competitors OS on there computers??? To me it sounds like the desperate act of a loosing company.

I probably have no right to say anything since I have never owned an apple product in my life (something about a company that thinks releasing there old product in new colours makes a new product doesn't sit well with me) but I can say to the people or person who thinks its hard for someone to make a custom PC you've obviously never tried it because I was a first year high school drop out and I built my old pc easy, and I'm dumb when it comes down to tech stuff, really dumb, especially back then. "its like Lego blocks".

Macs will always be known as "girl computers" just now there metro sexual. hurr hurr huuuuuuurrrrrrrrrr... Don't cry.

There is a million things I could say bad about apple and there products but many better people then myself have already and will continue to do so.

 

[Wintermoot]

$1200-$700=$500/5= $100 per gig of ram. isn't that horribly overpriced?

also DO NOT BUY A MAC! the price to spec ratio is HORRIBLE! also it barely runs any games ONLY BUY A MAC IF YOU HAVE TO MUCH MONEY OR WANT TO IMPRESS HIPSTERS AT STARBUCKS!

PS
I spent around 800~900 Euro,s on my rig and I,m confident it can run Skyrim on high~medium settings without much lag.

 

[YawningAngel]

"THEN spend at least $3,000 bucks on a new, up-to-date gaming rig."

A great gaming rig wouldn't cost anywhere near that much. As for Macs, you'd need to dual boot with Windows, and it can be somewhat of a pain.

It takes a whole 2 minutes of idiot proof instructions to do, courtesy of apple. So much misinformation going on up in this *****.

They're not that idiot proof, I can cope with the Gentoo install and I still managed to screw them up.

You managed to screw bootcamp up, or gentoo install up? Because I don't know of someone who could mess up the bootcamp process...

The Bootcamp. And when I say I screwed it up, I mean I followed the instructions to the letter and they didn't work.

 

[Tharwen]

I've spent the last 2 days trying to get Wine to work on my Macbook, and the strong impression I'm getting is that no, Macs cannot run Windows software.

Go to applications folder, go to utilities, and click boot camp assistant. Assuming you have a windows disk (You can burn one) you can get windows installing in a couple minutes.

I uninstalled boot camp a year ago because it took up disk space and was awkward to switch to.

Restarting your computer is hardly awkward, and it is the only way to use 100% of your computer's potential on windows applications. Of course it is going to take up disk space, if you want to install something on your computer, it is going to take up disk space.

...yes it is. You have to close everything that's running, then wait 5 minutes to be able to even start up the application. If you left a file on the Mac partition that you needed, you have to spend 10 more minutes restarting and copying it over. Compare that to the time it takes to navigate to the application in terminal and start it up with wine. Also, there's virtually no difference in performance, if that's what you meant by potential. Wine works by natively running windows libraries. The only problem is in getting the program to run in the first place, which is often painfully difficult.

Anyway, I have Wine working now, and I'm discovering that it can't seem to run any games because it's not powerful enough. Blame Intel and their horrible little graphics chipsets.

 

[Jandau]

3k for a new gaming PC? Are you nuts?

My PC cost me about $600-700, and that was 4 years ago AND it was prebuilt (local store, none of that overpriced brand crap). It still runs everything I put in it (had a bit of trouble with Witcher 2, but it was bearable). I could get that same machine for even less, and the same amount of money today would buy me a PC that could run anything...

 

[Outright Villainy]

You can buy (read: Buy, and then build) a really high end comp for around ?1000. US prices, you'd think would be hugely inflated, but wouldn't come out more than $1100 or $1200, since parts are hella cheap there. I got mine for ?750, and this plays Human revolution on 1080p at high settings with >60fps. It's basically good enough for any gaming you'd need. Hell, current BF3 beta benchmarks on my graphics card get 50-60fps on medium, which is enough for anyone.

OSX should never be used for gaming. Ever. If you have a mac and want to game, just run a windows partition on it.

Anyway, I have Wine working now, and I'm discovering that it can't seem to run any games because it's not powerful enough. Blame Intel and their horrible little graphics chipsets.

Intel CPUs are so far ahead of graphics cards right now it's not even funny. With the last generation of intel CPUs, no game currently made will be bottlenecked by cpu, even in SLI or Crossfire. Also, you're surprised about games not running that well when you run on non native software, and then blame the hardware? Really?

 

[matt87_50]

I would disagree with your claims about price. The only computers I would say are above the average price/value ratio are the MacBook Pros, and the Mac Pros. The MacBook Air and the iMac absolutely kill anything near their price. You certainly don't NEED a Mac for anything. That doesn't mean that you are going to be way better off in whatever industry you work in by owning a mac, not only because of the superiority of OS X, but the ability to switch to windows if the need arises.

woah, no. I was talking priceerformance when saying 'value'. and as I said, while the mac laptops are indeed great. when it comes to desktops, MAC'S GOT NOTHING!! it is simple physics! in order to make the macs small, stylish and quiet, they use laptop parts ffs!! with a PC you can have a giant, noisy box, and because of this freedom, you can get MUCH more power, for MUCH less money!! it is simple fact. Apple may be great, but they aren't magicians, they can't compete on price/performance AND make it soo much quieter and smaller... the only thing that would stand a chance at matching performance would be the mac pro, but because they use server grade parts in them, they are really expensive.

the simple fact is that Apple DO NOT DO a desktop that focuses on price/performance. to their credit in almost every other way, they use high quality parts for everything. which is great! for everything EXCEPT price/performance.

from my 20 years experience using macs (and I'm 25) I would disagree that OSX is superior to windows... I hate using it. it has some things that are better, but on balance, I would pick windows hands down. but that is just my personal choice (and also the choice of everyone in my office)

but you are certainly right that when it comes to absolute compatibility, the ability to run both OSs makes the Mac the clear choice.

but for someone who is budget conscious looking for a desktop to play games, but can also be used for work. I would say that a PC is the clear choice.

Edit: I should just say again, I'm not talking about off the shelf PCs bought from the local big stores. I'm talking about the custom made ones bought from the specialist OEM online stores.

ok, so here is a real world example:

for decent gaming, you would probably want the top of the line iMac, in Australia, that is $2400

at umart.com.au, you can build a PC Box with equivalent parts (if not better) for $1100

chuck in a 27" monitor for an extra $300, for a total of $1400... with the added bonus of then getting to pick your own mouse and keyboard for gaming.

so yeah, the mac is $2300, the PC is $1400, which is incidentally the same price as the WORST iMac...

just to give you an idea of where I'm coming from.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

No.... just no.
Macs can play some not all.
Also RAM tends to go in even numbers so I think this guy may have been lying

Tends to, but I used to have 2 x 1gig sticks before I swapped one out for a 2Gig. Then I recently swapped out the other for a 4gig.

So it's perfectly possible to have xGig RAM, however I don't think that Macs just 'Have' 5 extra... basically because 5 extra over what? there is no 'standard' PC configuration so one you buy from a store can have between 1-8 Gig of RAM depending on your budget.

 

[Conza]

I wouldn't usually say this, but at least 75% of the people here have no fucking idea what they are talking about. Yes, you can certainly run windows games on a Mac. It takes about about 5 clicks to get windows installed on your mac, from there it can run windows just as well (And in some proven cases, better) then a windows native computer. And you still have all the advantages of OS X if you want to do professional work. The thing is, if you aren't going to take advantage of an OS X native system, then you are better of buying a cheaper (Less reliable) windows native computer.

Exactly what are these "proven cases" where running Windows on an iMac is better? It sounds like you're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. They both use the same hardware architecture, except the stuff in iMacs is pathetically weak but comes in a shiny box and a huge price tag.

Here here! I second this above question. Please; bring on the proven cases, and I want to see how much more performance and extra $3000 gets you, with lesser components, please, I'm just dying to know how it's possible to pay more money, get less capable hardware, and yet still come out in front - is it magic man?

I wouldn't usually say this, but at least 75% of the people here have no fucking idea what they are talking about. Yes, you can certainly run windows games on a Mac. It takes about about 5 clicks to get windows installed on your mac, from there it can run windows just as well (And in some proven cases, better) then a windows native computer. And you still have all the advantages of OS X if you want to do professional work. The thing is, if you aren't going to take advantage of an OS X native system, then you are better of buying a cheaper (Less reliable) windows native computer.

Exactly what are these "proven cases" where running Windows on an iMac is better? It sounds like you're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. They both use the same hardware architecture, except the stuff in iMacs is pathetically weak but comes in a shiny box and a huge price tag.

It was a big study by popular mechanics, it started as a simple windows native computer vs os x native computer of equal hardware. Also, about the price tag, I challenge you to find ANYTHING that can even remotely compete with an iMac.

Challenge accepted! Please read my above post for more details.

Then I challenge you, to tell me why, a laptop shoved into a monitor, could possibly ever compete with a real bonafied PC.

Okay, that is like me saying "My MacBook is better then your iPhone". Find an all in one.

No, its actually asking you to either withdraw your statement that a mac could possibly run better than a similar, check that, superior speced PC.

And furthermore, its my marketable desktop computer kicks the shit out of your marketable desktop computer, because it gives much more bang for much less buck.

So go on, give us the tests or withdraw the statement.

Like it or not, all in ones are a HUGE part of the PC market, one that apple is entirely dominating. Just like apple is dominating the ultraportable market.

Excuse me for saying this, as I intend no ill will.

Are you mentally retarded?

I shall, say again. Please provide the case studies, or conceed and be done with it.

iMacs, while 'yes' are "WONDERFUL!" all in ones *pukes* are pieces of shit, when it comes to graphics power.

Yes, they have a place in the market, for morons who can't connect a video cable into video card. Fark, if you're that dumb, then you deserve an iMac, serves those people right. It really shouldn't take a high IQ, to plug a video plug into a video card now can it? Oh well! Just waste more money on a soon to be dated computer because of sheer laziness.

Yay Apple!

My 2 year old iMac with an ATI 5750m is able to get 40fps on starcraft 2 on all ultra settings, under OS X, at 1440x2560, and that is decent to say the least. There is no computer in it's class that competes with it. Just admit it, and then we can move onto the MacBook air.

Yep, you are mentally retarded, and in lieu of this (oh, that means because you've confirmed it for me), I won't make fun of you any more.

I will say this, it is the best in class, because it is the only one 'in' its class, because shoving a laptop into a desktop screen, is a really stupid idea.

Tell me how much your machine cost?

I too have SC2, however I actually have a 'real' desktop computer (not a laptop pretending to be a desktop), which means in this case, a real graphics card, your 5750M would be fried before my 285GTX (that's what we call a real graphics card), even realised it was under pressure. I also have an i7 950, which is the 4th best desktop processor, in the world, coupled with the 285GTX, and while it is a DX10 card, to my knowledge it was the second best DX10 ever released, with 1GB of dedicated graphics ram, and it can deal a whole world of hurt.

Oh yeah, SC2? Too easy, 75 FPS (Full HD).

Look to be honest, if you had a laptop which had a 5750M card, and were getting 40 FPS, SC2 is tolerable, but thats all it is, tolerable. But you spent 4 or 5 times what is appropriate for a laptop, and got included with it an overpriced screen, then you got the handicap of them being shoved together, for no reason what so ever.

You're computer.

A. "Does not" run Windows better than any PC of the same or superior grade, you've failed to prove otherwise multiple times now.

B. Is also so stupid, only a company like Apple would continue making it for 20 years, long after every other manufacturer decided it was a ridiculous idea.

You may as well stick an LCD on the side of a mid or full tower case, and lug it around claiming you have the ultimate laptop. If it's a desktop it doesn't need portability so make something servable that won't overheat, if it needs to be portable, then use micro technology and sacrifice performance. Don't say 'gee, lets use laptop bits, and then make it have no portability' thats fucking stupid no matter who you are.

You have lost any and all potential credibility, and I'm just sorry that you're so brain washed you can't even understand why you are wrong.

 

[paper_n00b]

Can I just say anyone who thinks that the MacBook air is good value for money is bloody retarded. I found this after 5 min of searching http://www.harveynorman.com.au/product/1256979386534/asus-asv-tyv-laptop it's even from Harvey Norman who are not the cheapest and heres the best stock MacBook air http://store.apple.com/au/configure/MC966X/A?select=select&product=MC966X%2FA&mco=MjMzOTQ0OTU and I mean it's an i5 with no dedicated graphics or a disk drive ( which when added on take the price to $2000) enough to by a separate 27" monitor for the asus laptop and still have money to spare. End statement

 

[Sahasrala88]

First, your friend is wrong on many levels. Technically you can run a program like Bootcamp to play games that only run on Windows, but I've heard it doesn't always work well. You can run a Windows operating system on a Mac, but then it really defeats the purpose of having a Mac in the first place. I am a Mac user myself and there are a handful of games that are made for it. Macs are great if you are pursuing a career in the arts/entertainment industry, which is what I'm doing. If you want a computer for gaming, you are better off with a PC.

I don't really agree with the assumption that gaming is dead on the Mac. More and more companies are making games that work on multiple platforms, including Mac. Looking at the library on Steam alone, you have developers like Valve (Left 4 Dead, Portal, Counterstrike, Half-Life), Team Meat (Super Meat Boy "Mac version in the works", Binding of Isaac) making games. There's games like Duke Nukem Forever, Assassin's Creed, Two Worlds 2, Amnesia the Dark Descent (greatest horror game of 2010), Plant's vs. Zombies, Civilization IV, Worms, and Eve Online. All on Steam for Mac and a number of these games are recently made. You can also run many Blizzards games like Diablo and Warcraft on Macs. Now it may not be the expansive library of the PC or of gaming consoles like the PS3, but there are a good variety of games available for the Mac. I suspect that if people continue to switch over to Mac computers (although in this economy who knows), developers are going to continue making there games for PC and Mac.

Having said all of that, if you are getting a computer primarily for gaming, I would say get a PC. If you want a computer for working on film/music/art or if you want a computer that's very user friendly and are willing to pay a lot more for it, then get a Mac.

 

[brainslurper]

Malware =/= virus. Just only install steam in your windows partition, and have 0 chance of getting a virus, and use the OS X partition for work, or anything else that doesn't utilize DX11. Problem solved!

Apart from you can't play any other game instantly - which was the original question. And you can still get viruses. And malaware can be viruses.

Your fanatical devotion to your own version of reality is entertaining, but I think you should come down to planet Us now and then. Just so we can agree on terms that you seem to be re-defining to suit your own purposes.

Either you can run any game, which means you can have viruses; or you can't. It's not a "Well, Macs are still great" question.

Hell, you can WRITE a virus in Mac Windows...so you can easily be infected with one.

Malware can be a starting point for viruses, but nothing like this exists on OS X. I never said that Macs could run any game. Ever. Any person who says that is extremely ignorant. However, his claim that you can play any windows game you want on a mac is correct.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Malware can be a starting point for viruses, but nothing like this exists on OS X. I never said that Macs could run any game. Ever. Any person who says that is extremely ignorant. However, his claim that you can play any windows game you want on a mac is correct.

How can you know about one claim but not the other? They're right next to each other.

And the statement was PC game, not Windows game. Big difference.

 

[brainslurper]

I wouldn't usually say this, but at least 75% of the people here have no fucking idea what they are talking about. Yes, you can certainly run windows games on a Mac. It takes about about 5 clicks to get windows installed on your mac, from there it can run windows just as well (And in some proven cases, better) then a windows native computer. And you still have all the advantages of OS X if you want to do professional work. The thing is, if you aren't going to take advantage of an OS X native system, then you are better of buying a cheaper (Less reliable) windows native computer.

Exactly what are these "proven cases" where running Windows on an iMac is better? It sounds like you're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. They both use the same hardware architecture, except the stuff in iMacs is pathetically weak but comes in a shiny box and a huge price tag.

It was a big study by popular mechanics, it started as a simple windows native computer vs os x native computer of equal hardware. Also, about the price tag, I challenge you to find ANYTHING that can even remotely compete with an iMac.

You got a source for this? Because it's still not making any sense. If you have a PC and an iMac with the same specs then they should run Windows in the same manner.

Are you joking? The cheapest iMac is £999 and comes with a whopping AMD Radeon HD 6750M. It's not even a desktop graphics chipset, it's the one they use in laptops! That's absolutely insane for the price. After looking for a whole minute I found this http://3xs.scan.co.uk/ShowSystem.asp?SystemID=1017 which is about the same price but has specs which would destroy the iMac and even then that is probably overpriced to some degree and you could build it for cheaper yourself.

That is a tower, not an all in one. Try again.

You said nothing about it being an all in one. I said the hardware was pathetically weak, you asked me to find something better for the money, I did. After reading your subsequent posts you're nothing but a mac fanboy.

I'm still waiting on the details of these "proven cases" where windows runs better on a mac than a pc...

I already told you who published the study, and what it was about, you can find it yourself. It doesn't matter how powerful the hardware is, I can pull out my laptop when someone challenges me to find something the can compete with their iPhone and it still won't make sense. Just find an all in one. Nobody on this thread yet has been able to.

Edit: If you give up on that, try to find something that will compete with a MacBook air. Slightly less difficult, however still an unanswered challenge.

If you're seeking to rely on something, especially when you're making such utterly BS claims, then the burden is on you to provide sources. Why the hell are you banging on about all in one computers? No one has found one because you're the only one bringing them up! Go and read the OP again, does he talk about wanting to buy an all in one for gaming? NO! He just wants a gaming computer, no form factor specified.

The question is simply asking is an iMac suitable for gaming, and the answer to that is hell no because the hardware is pathetic and for the same money you could get an awesome gaming PC instead. Are you honestly claiming that the iMac would be a better choice for gaming?

PS. I found your stupid study. You've MASSIVELY misrepresented it. You're definitely the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. Complete and utter fanboy.

First of all, calm the fuck down. I know better then you do that the hardware in an iMac is suitable for gaming, because I own one. Yes, there are computers better suited gaming, as one of the big advantages of a Mac is OS X. If all you want to do with your computer is play games then just build a tower or something. All in ones came into this when people started saying the iMac was overpriced, and yet nobody here has been able to find a computer in it's class that can match it. Try to realize that just because I am challenging what you are saying, doesn't mean I am an unquestioning fanboy who will buy any apple product simply because it is made by apple.