Online games - macs
- Thread starter tuned
- Start date
http://store.steampowered.com/searc...&category2=1&advanced=0&sort_order=ASC&page=1
Definition of decent depends on your taste.
Definition of decent depends on your taste.
OEM should be fine. OEM is allowed on any ONE computer with no transferability to a new motherboard. So long as the motherboard doesn't change it's only being installed on one computer.
I have Windows 7 Pro OEM installed on the mac I'm typing on right now. I use Parallels to access windows apps on my bootcamp partition from within OSX and boot into bootcamp directly for gaming. No issues. It's all on one of those new Sammy 6 GB/sec SSDs and very snappy.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I believe I read somewhere that they might make a Mac client for GW2, but don't quote me on that.
If it goes on sale on Steam (which I'm sure it will), then I'm sure Valve would give them added incentive for a Mac client.While I don't care for Macs myself, I do like that Valve is working with developers to push Mac clients for games.
Regards,
SB
GW2 won't have subscription fee on any platform it ends up running on.
Also, what do you mean you want mac for graphics? For how it looks or for using some specific graphics related app there that doesn't run on any other platform (does something like that actually exist any more?)?
Also, what do you mean you want mac for graphics? For how it looks or for using some specific graphics related app there that doesn't run on any other platform (does something like that actually exist any more?)?
Oh god yes it still exists, particularly if you publish scientific papers. EasyDraw is easily the best drawing app for pseudo-cad publication drawings and OmniGraph is tops for conceptual data graphs. Then there is the whole host of unix/Linux freeware science software that runs on OSX that only has very expensive win equivalents like Octave for MATLAB. From a day-to-day perspective OSX frees you from that most-broken of all databases known as Outlook and has basic functionality that win still lacks like having a bunch of windows open and being able to mouse scroll on a background window without having to foreground it first.
I use win7, Linux and OSX daily and find I'm most productive in OSX (more work done per click let's say). It's far from perfect and I do like win7 much more than XP, but OSX still has distinct advantages...as does Linux for some things.
Last edited by a moderator:
That doesn't sound right at all. How is the driver support under OSX? Last I checked their file system performance and multiprocessing capability was rather atrocious as well, even compared to windows XP and not to mention Linux or newer windows versions.
Driver support is much better under OSX as the hardware options are next to zero. 3D is all OpenGL.
File system performance of HFS+ vs. NTFS is hardly any different to an end user and neither is as good as ext3 or ext4. I run both Win7 and OSX on the exact same hardware (MacBook Pro) navigating mostly the same directories and there's no perceptible difference.
And where do you get unix having poorer multiprocessor capability than windows?
OSX boots much faster, resumes from sleep much faster has longer battery life on the same laptop hardware, benches a faster Geekbench on identical hardware, etc. There are many ways in which OSX beats Windows 7.
That said, there are plenty of reasons to choose one over the other and if 3dmax is the goal then windows 7 is the better choice.
How many quadros are supported? How is their performance in standard opengl productivity benchmarks in OSX vs Windows?
Navigating directories would likely be faster under fat32 than ntfs
I can't find the specific benchmark any more but someone did some tests on a couple year old 2P OSX box vs same thing running Linux and Vista (could have been a server version too, can't remember exactly) and under server-like load OSX was significantly slower than the others on anything that ran on more than one thread. It could have been due to sucky NUMA support, I'm not sure. I believe forking was also several times slower under OSX than others. There is a possibility they have fixed it by now but I have my doubts.
Last edited by a moderator:
Quadros? I didn't think we were talking Mac Pro (the only mac that accepts discrete cards) and I have no idea.
Indeed fat32/64 might be faster than NTFS hence the reason ext4 was created. Nonetheless what advantages do you see in NTFS over HFS+ for a desktop user?
And then you want to compare servers? I'm totally confused. Are we talking about a server for this guy? Personally I wouldn't (and don't) run anything but linux for a server. No version of OSX or windows is going to touch it for speed, usability, stability and cost so why would anyone care? But since you do, Snow Leopard made great leaps in server performance over leopard. Rewriting big chunks of the OS in Cocoa has that effect. Lion is likely even faster as Rosetta has been ditched.
You kinda forgot to quote all the stuff about faster boot times, etc.
Now back to the user experience, you have none with OSX, I have tons with all of the above. Today my time has been about 50/50 split between OSX and Win7 (servers are rock solid so no linux today).
If I needed a particular app that only ran on windows, I'd use windows. If I can run it on any OS, I'd choose OSX as I am simply more productive with it the way I work (creating scientific papers and presentations using media from multiple sources and windows, that kinds of graphic, plots, etc.).
(note: I still refuse to run that ass-nugget of a program Outlook on any Win7 machine. Thunderbird is uglier but Outlook has the worst database ever - searches are insanely slow as I keep about 10 years worth of email and corruption is a regular issue)
Indeed fat32/64 might be faster than NTFS hence the reason ext4 was created. Nonetheless what advantages do you see in NTFS over HFS+ for a desktop user?
And then you want to compare servers? I'm totally confused. Are we talking about a server for this guy? Personally I wouldn't (and don't) run anything but linux for a server. No version of OSX or windows is going to touch it for speed, usability, stability and cost so why would anyone care? But since you do, Snow Leopard made great leaps in server performance over leopard. Rewriting big chunks of the OS in Cocoa has that effect. Lion is likely even faster as Rosetta has been ditched.
You kinda forgot to quote all the stuff about faster boot times, etc.
Now back to the user experience, you have none with OSX, I have tons with all of the above. Today my time has been about 50/50 split between OSX and Win7 (servers are rock solid so no linux today).
If I needed a particular app that only ran on windows, I'd use windows. If I can run it on any OS, I'd choose OSX as I am simply more productive with it the way I work (creating scientific papers and presentations using media from multiple sources and windows, that kinds of graphic, plots, etc.).
(note: I still refuse to run that ass-nugget of a program Outlook on any Win7 machine. Thunderbird is uglier but Outlook has the worst database ever - searches are insanely slow as I keep about 10 years worth of email and corruption is a regular issue)
