Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Gamers Itching To Switch To Macs? 261

Posted by Zonk from the need-a-little-time-in-boot-camp dept.
An anonymous reader writes "CNET.com.au is forecasting Windows gamers will be flocking to Intel-based Apples, saying many 'have been looking for an excuse to switch to Macs.' The article says: 'Of course, games enthusiasts who like to customise their systems and upgrade their hardware (such as graphics cards) at the drop of a hat may still prefer the tinkering freedom a PC allows. But then there are the legions of more casual gamers who only upgrade every several years or so -- as long as they can play what's available at their local games shop, I'm sure they won't be fussed that they're not running off the latest gear from ATI or NVIDIA.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gamers Itching To Switch To Macs? More

Gamers Itching To Switch To Macs?

Comments Filter:

  • "work" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gEvil (beta) ( 945888 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:01AM (#15076167)
    Considering that when many people say that they need a Windows machine to do "work" on, they actually mean they need it for playing games, I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see more people make the switch. Admittedly, as the summary states, this would be the lower to middle end gamers. The high end gamers will still spend 500 bucks every 6 months on the newest graphics card, all the while bitching about how expensive Macs are...

    • Re:"work" (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JWW ( 79176 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:24AM (#15076440)
      Yep. Admittedly, running games is the only reason I would consider dual-boot for my iMac, and I'm still holding off for now.

    • I agree with you, a lot of people will switch now that they can run both XP and OS X. The only thing that keeps me tied to Windows at home is the fact that I can't run many games on Linux without hassle or money (cedega just isn't worth the effort IMO). I also am going to agree with you on the cost of a Mac vs. the cost of a video card. Both cost alot of money. So I personally am not going to buy a Mac in the near future, but it is something that's potentially down the road for me. However, the real th

      • Since Mac is based on Unix, it might also speed up (and increase) the number of "retail" (read: does not need cedega) releases of Linux games as well by decreasing that migration time.

        Umm, no. Porting Linux software to OS X, if you're willing to put up with using X Windows instead of Quartz (or, for that matter, the terminal with no GUI) is fairly trivial.

        Porting a native Mac application to Linux doesn't get any easier just because they're both unix-based.

        • In some situations it would be easier than porting a Windows app to Linux; interacting with devices, dealing with threading and terminal settings will be easier if the app is already on OS X. And in the case of a game, if it runs on OS X it already will be using OpenGL.

          For a lot of applications where calls to the UI are more prevalent it could be more of an issue, but usually games don't worry much about Quartz vs. GTK vs. Win32 in terms of interfaces; they just need a minimal wrapper that abstracts input

    • Re:"work" (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Yst ( 936212 )
      The high end gamers will still spend 500 bucks every 6 months on the newest graphics card, all the while bitching about how expensive Macs are...

      But the hobbyist gamers, who combine the hobbies of constantly tinkering with and tweaking their computers with their gaming hobby in order to spend as little as possible and get as much as possible out of it (the sort of folks who bought the hackable Sapphire 9500s in order to mod them into glitchy Radeon 9700 equivalents just because they could) will never be sat

    • Re:"work" (Score:3, Insightful)

      by danpsmith ( 922127 )
      500 every six months is still cheaper than having to buy a new system every six months. And let's face it, only morons with more money than brains buy 500 dollar video cards every six months.

  • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • That sounds like most PC gamers to me, actually. Casual gamers are more likely to stick to a console.

      I think they mean "occasional gamers," not "casual gamers". People always throw around the "casual gamer" term without understanding what market it actually represents.

      That being said, online gaming is still a big market for casual gaming. The only problem the market has run into is, how do you make money off of all these users who want fast, fun, and free games? It's been a bit of a sticky issue. We'll see

    • n any event, gamers are a crowd where looks matter. A Mac can be sexy, but an Alienware box is somehow simultaneously sexy and badass, and that's what gamers like.

      It's funny you should mention that. I was talking to a few people the other day about what kinds of laptops they've been seeing lately and what they infer about others from them. We were talking about the security conventions. There are lots of mac laptops these days, which basically tells people that the user is not one of those "Windows peop

      • Re:Sexy hardware (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Enowhat ( 966593 )
        Agree and disagree. there are divisions within the gamer clique. Those that go for looks, A kind of gamer-chav, that blings the case, and then there are the beige-gamers. who think that plain cases, with a machine that can out think a cray inside, are where its at. Looks arent everything. Personally i wouldnt buy alienware, because the fun is building the box myself and making a beefy silcone bit-vomiter. And I think most gamers are similar. they love making a machine that pushes the limits and allows them
      • I see the college lecture hall audience but it's about the same effect. Powerbooks for girls and hipster guys (the ones with oversized headphones and womens pants) dells for just about everyone else, anything else is the few people who didn't see low price or a pretty case and jump emediately on the bandwagon.
    • Contrary to popular belief a lot of gamers are not 13 year olds ;-)
      I think if you substitute casual gamer for closet gamer it all makes more sense. People who don't consider themselves gamers but nevertheless end up spending quite some time on Quake, the Sims and other really popular titles.

      I ended up buying a PC a couple of years ago (and regretting it immensely) solely for playing Dungeon Master or something like that, such a clever, funny and engrossing game that I just had to have it. Me a gamer? No way

  • XP? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kangburra ( 911213 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:02AM (#15076178)
    Microsoft heaven, Apple users actually buying copies of Windows at full retail prices!
    • BitTorrent

      (or is that two words? Intercaps are always confusing)
      • A co-worker of mine and I were discussing this very issue yesterday. I surmised that Boot Camp will actually increase Windows XP piracy. There's a resonable assumption that many Mac users will have access to some sort of Windows XP disc, and finding a Volume License key to avoid registration is not hard at all. Hell, if you work for a large company, run Belarc Advisor [belarc.com] on your corporate box and you probably have the VL key there staring you in the face. If you're a developer, chances are you have MSDN-grante
    • I really don't think so...

      Some will buy full legit coppies, some will buy acadmic coppies and use them improperly, but almost all will pirate. Hell, I have several legit licences for Windows XP and the only version I have installed is pirated.

    • You misspelled "hell." (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rimbo ( 139781 ) <rimbosity@sbcglo[ ].net ['bal' in gap]> on Thursday April 06, 2006 @02:03PM (#15078104) Homepage Journal
      People are accustomed to not buying their OS, since nearly every computer ships with one today. Microsoft's demand that OEMs install Windows before shipping the computer has this side-effect: You expect the OS to be part of the deal. You don't see that you've paid money for a copy of Windows, so in your mind, you've never had to pay for it before. Do you think that will somehow change? That people will suddenly start paying for something they never had to in the past?

      If someone does a study on this a year from now and finds that more than half of the copies of Windows installed on dual-boot Macs are legal, I'd seriously question the study's methodology.

      Meanwhile, because Apple is not a Windows OEM, that means that Microsoft (or other OEMs) must deal with the support calls made when things go awry. This increases Microsoft's costs, and the costs of Apple's competitors.

      It gets worse for Microsoft: They are in no position to strong-arm Apple into an OEM contract of any kind. Apple doesn't want the contract, and the claim that they're shipping computers without an OS is leading people to pirate the OS falls flat. Apple is shipping an os, they can claim that what people do with the dual-boot is not Apple's responsibility, and they're right.

      Microsoft can claim that Boot Camp is leading to more piracy, and they'd be right about that; however, the claim that Apple is somehow deliberately enabling this loss of sales -- although very likely -- is a subtle point. You can also see how Microsoft themselves, by strong-arming OEMs, have created a trap for themselves to where a company that Does Not Need Microsoft -- such as Apple -- can exploit that gap.

      The more I look at it, the more impressed I am with the evil brilliance behind Apple's move. And yes, I meant it when I said "evil." This was truly devious. It benefits all of us in the short run, but in the long run it benefits Apple the most.
      • You don't see that you've paid money for a copy of Windows, so in your mind, you've never had to pay for it before. Do you think that will somehow change? That people will suddenly start paying for something they never had to in the past?

        The way I look at it, I've had to buy 3 or more copies of Windows and right now I'm only running a single one of them. If I decide to buy a brand new top of the line AlienWare PC, why shouldn't I be able to install my same old copy of Windows XP on it?

        Microsoft will surely
    • I live in Western Washington. Pretty much everyone here knows someone who can get them a deal on Windows through the Microsoft Employee Store.

  • Really? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Workshed ( 838497 )
    Personally I would rather spend money on a PC that is probably a more capable at playing games (given the graphics card) than a Mac. Though I wouldn't put myself in the casual gamer category I can't see why a casual gamer would pay more for a Mac if a bit of casual gaming is one of the buying factors...

    • Though I wouldn't put myself in the casual gamer category I can't see why a casual gamer would pay more for a Mac if a bit of casual gaming is one of the buying factors...

      Quick, do most games run acceptably on said graphics card? No I don't mean can you get 82 fps instead of 75 fps, I mean will the casual gamer still have fun playing the game?

      Now, can any machine other than a mac run OS X and all the associated software without extensive hacking?

      Gee, why would someone pay more for a machine that only r

    • Simply put because other tasks would be casual as well, instead of a pain. We're talking casual here, cool and relax. Well, OS X and its standard apps are as casual as you can get. Maintaining a mac is like maintaining your lightswitch (when compared to maintaining a PC). It is still a computer, you WILL call it names now and then, but it's way less trouble than your average XP gaming experience coupled with casual internet access, casual porn snooping followed by casual mindwipe, reactor core swap and rein

  • Half-Life 2 on a MacBook Pro? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ford Prefect ( 8777 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:06AM (#15076224) Homepage
    Yup. [hylobatidae.org] And it works really well. Really, really well. Better than on my desktop PC.

    At the Valve Developer Community, a few of us are logging how Valve games run on these new Macs [valvesoftware.com], so if you've got any new information, feel free to contribute.

    I do think it will kill most native MacOS gaming, or at least cause a major shake-up. But I'm not surprised - paying through the nose for years-old ports of PC games just didn't appeal to me, to be honest.

    But what I've got now is a Universal Computer, capable of running Mac software (both PowerPC and Intel), UNIX stuff (thanks to Fink and X11.app) and now Windows stuff. I've been dual-booting on my PCs between Linux and Windows for years, so I'm familiar with the drawbacks, but the advantages are great. By day, for work and for my photography, I have a high-powered Mac laptop, and by night, for gaming and modding stuff, I've got a high-powered PC laptop.

    Not bad!

    • Re:Half-Life 2 on a MacBook Pro? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wvitXpert ( 769356 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:18AM (#15076364)
      I do think it will kill most native MacOS gaming, or at least cause a major shake-up.

      Are games going to start shipping with a free copy of Windows XP? If not I don't see how game manufacturers are going to assume that all the Mac users have Windows also.

      Of course sales may drop and force the companies out of business. But the game developers aren't going to say "Well, you can now pay $300 to buy a copy of Windows to run on your Mac, so were going to stop making Mac games."
      • I don't see how game manufacturers are going to assume that all the Mac users have Windows also.

        They'll just stop porting games to OS X altogether. Why bother?

        -Eric

        • Re:Half-Life 2 on a MacBook Pro? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by MoneyT ( 548795 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:26PM (#15077124) Journal
          Why bother?

          For the same reason that despite the fact that OS X can and does run X11 apps easily, people still spend time porting them to aqua and the mac environment. Because mac users HATE applications that don't look and play the same way that the rest of the applications do. And rebooting in to windows every time you want to play your game is not going to win many customers.
      • No, they will assume - correctly - that most of these gamers will pirate XP. After all, they "only want it for games" so Microsoft doesn't really deserve any money... right?
      • See, the same rationale could have been made about Linux games. Yet tell that to Loki games. Oh wait, they went out of business, didn't they?

        See, the issue isn't one of right vs wrong, nor game _developpers_ assuming that everyone has Windows. Noone is that stupid. The issue is simple one of market size and _publishers_ deciding if it promises much of a ROI.

        To illustrate it, even without booting Windows, you didn't see many games released for Macs. Sure, there was the occasional big company deciding to go t
    • "Yup. And it works really well. Really, really well. Better than on my desktop PC."

      Not only that, but the MacBook Pro is very competitively priced compared to other high-end Core Duo laptops.

      I've tried fiddling with options on the Dell website and the outcome is always a slightly more expensive Dell machine for similar hardware and software. None of these machines are cheap, however.

      I'd wait for a few revisions, given how new the system is, but the Macbook Pro is one tasty machine for a decent price.
    • Heh, I'd just about decided that rather than spend money (and a month of headaches trying to figure out which one to get) on a new video card so I can play HL2, I'd get myself a Mac Mini instead.

      Now it looks like there is a chance that I can get both at once. Sweet!

      What I'm looking for, and hopefully will shortly see on your wiki, is a comparison between the two CPU choices on the mini. I had originally settled on a Single Core with 1Gb of RAM as the best set-up for me, but if Dual Core is going to make a d
      • What I'm looking for, and hopefully will shortly see on your wiki, is a comparison between the two CPU choices on the mini. I had originally settled on a Single Core with 1Gb of RAM as the best set-up for me, but if Dual Core is going to make a difference to gaming, I might stretch the credit card a little further.

        My father's got a single-boot, single-core Intel Mac Mini, and while it's a great little machine for MacOS X stuff, from what I've heard from web forums and the like the graphics system on both Ma
    • Makes you wonder how many game developers will look at this and say "Gee - if we do the Blizzard route and make our games dual-platform, that could be a selling point - 'Don't reboot - our game is Windows/Mac compatible!".

      I actually think it will cause *more* developers to think this way, since it's a competitive advantage to do so (at least in marketing terms).
  • WoW runs on a Mac. All they need to do is port Oblivion over, and I'd be set.
    • All they need to do is port Oblivion over

      Sounds like they just did.

      -Eric

    • Good luck running Oblivion on this, the system requirements are so stringent that even my 4200+ X2 with 2gb of ram gets a bit scathed by running it. Now I must admit that my video card is kind of subpar compared to other components (GEForce 6600GT), but still, good luck.
  • I use a Mac at work and have a PC at home. For some reason, I feel like I have the ability to tinker with the PC more.

    Also, another major factor is pirating things. Lets not get into the moral/ethical/legal arguments over this. The fact of the matter is that for a lot of people who are PC gamers...there is no good source of pirated Mac software (not that I've found at least). Believe it or not, that affects a lot of peoples decisions, especially since a decent Mac for gaming is quite expensive on its ow

    • Re:The problem (Score:2, Insightful)

      by FatMacDaddy ( 878246 )
      Since the late 80s I've had a Mac at home and a PC at work. Ever since Apple brought out the G4 PowerMac towers, though, I have the opposite impression of which is an easier box to reconfigure. I found the tower designs are so accessible and well thought out that it makes it difficult to keep your fingers out of the innards. I agree that there aren't as many hardware choices and vendors, but when I swap components or whatever, I have a much greater comfort level that my new config will work fine right off t
    • However the one thing I'd LOVE for a PC is Frontrow, since my PC is also my media center. If they came out with that for the PC, complete with a remote and possibly a wireless adapter to stream to my TV, I'd buy it in an instant. Windows Media Center Edition...tried it? Because its far more advanced than FrontRow from what I've seen. I managed to grab a remote off ebay, but you should be able to get them off OEM retailers.
      • The problem is...I don't want an entirely new operating system just to do this. I just want a piece of software, like Front Row, that I can purchase with a remote.

    • Also, another major factor is pirating things. Lets not get into the moral/ethical/legal arguments over this. The fact of the matter is that for a lot of people who are PC gamers...there is no good source of pirated Mac software (not that I've found at least).

      So, what you're saying is that people who know the least about Macs have the hardest time finding a source for ripped off Mac software? DUH!

      Believe it or not, that affects a lot of peoples decisions, especially since a decent Mac for gaming is quite e
      • "This isn't about morality or ethics, if you can afford a $2,000 computer, you can afford software. If you don't want to pay for it, there is plenty of free software out there."

        Look...I didn't want to get into this issue because it is such a highly debated subject...but it is not your place to determine that if I can drop $2k on a computer, than I can afford to spend money on software as well. You do not know how I budget my money or what I decide to purchase or how much discretionary income I have. If I

    • I use a Mac at work and have a PC at home. For some reason, I feel like I have the ability to tinker with the PC more.

      Do you think maybe that is because one is at home and the other at work?

    • For some reason, I feel like I have the ability to tinker with the PC more.

      Lets think about this rationally. With a PC you can replace most any of the hardware you want. With a mac you can replace most of the hardware, but you have a limited subset of motherboards and a harder time finding drivers for much of the hardware. Also, Apple has not yet shipped an Intel tower, which makes modification harder.

      On the other side of things, OS X is 50% or so open source and has free compilers and dev tools. It al

  • I prefer building my own gaming rig and putting in the parts I want and upgrading when I please, how I please. And god knows any gaming rig I put together will be cheaper, both in the short and long run, than any advertised "gamer" or "power user" system, Mac or PC.
    • Yeah, you'd think that, wouldn't you? I priced out what I'd spent on my mid-range gaming rig (Athlon XP 2100-based system) over the three years that I had it. Grand total for hardware and software (and that's sans games): over $1400.

      Hm. That's about what an iMac costs, isn't it?

      Sure, my initial outlay for the box was about $600. But then I got the DVD burner. And the LCD. And the extra memory. And I upgraded the video card. And then reformatted and reinstalled Windows 2000 and then Windows XP Media Center a
      • You make it sound like the iMac magically stays up to date.

        On average I replace the performance guts (CPU, mobo, RAM, graphics card) of my computer every two years nowadays. ~600 Euros for that (split into two upgrades usually quite some time apart). If, instead of my next upgrades, I bought a Mac for those 600 Euros, what would I get? My PC can run all new games at maximum details for almost a year after the upgrade, what would the 600 Euro Mac deliver? And could I upgrade just the performance stuff on it

  • Apple is going to make a killing... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by avalys ( 221114 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:13AM (#15076310)
    To everyone who thinks this is going to be Apple's demise, you are completely wrong. No one buys a Mac for the hardware. Apple blathers on and on about how they're a hardware company, but that's bull. They're a software company, and they make the best desktop operating system on the planet.

    No one is going to buy a Mac now to run Windows on it. They're going to buy a Mac because they've always wanted to try OS X, but they have a few stubborn applications that they need to run on Windows, and until now couldn't justify the risk of switching and losing access to them. People on here would say "Just keep a second computer!", but most people aren't interested in that.

    It is absurd to suggest that Apple is going to die now that people can run Windows on their Mac. The whole point of a Mac is NOT to run Windows. That's why people pay Apple's high prices - for the ability to run OS X. Companies are not going to stop making OS X software just because Apples can run Windows - if people wanted Windows, they would've bought a freaking Dell!

    Take my dad, for instance. He loves to play chess against Fritz 8 and over the net with Playchess.com, which I bought him a few years ago. But it only runs on Windows. He's been wanting to get a Mac when his current computer dies, but until now he wouldn't be able to run his favorite software. He doesn't mind the hassle of dual-booting.

    This will entice a huge population of people who have been teetering on the edge to make the switch. And now every time they reboot into OS X from Windows, or into Windows from OS X, the superiority of OS X will become clear. Even more so as time goes on, when the Windows installation becomes a spyware-infested, bloated piece of crap with fifteen different taskbar icons taking up 30MB of RAM each that starts to pause mysteriously after common tasks, and OS X just keeps humming along.

    I didn't have any plans to upgrade my PowerBook before this, but I'm going to pick up a MacBook Pro this weekend.
    • Think about it this way. There are companies out there that allow each user to choose the system that they are most efficient working in. These types of companies no longer have to maintain two lines of hardware, as they can buy Apple equipment and install Boot Camp and Windows. I'm sure that there are ways of running Linux on the intel Macs, but I haven't looked into it myself, given that I don't have an interest in it.
    • "No one buys a Mac for the hardware. "

      I guess I'm no one. Interesting...

  • Bout time... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by steveo777 ( 183629 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:14AM (#15076314) Homepage Journal
    But then there are the legions of more casual gamers who only upgrade every several years or so -- as long as they can play what's available at their local games shop

    It's about time somebody said it. In fact, I'd say that not even 5% of gamers are so hardcore that they upgrade anything in their PC every six months or less. I usually just get construct a cheap rig and upgrade it after a year or two and then jump to the next cheap rig and re-use any parts that I can. I do have a desktop replacement that I replace every two years or so as well. I'm one of the legion, I suppose.

  • I apologize ahead of time for sounding troll-ish, but this is yet another story about "people might get a Mac-- this time for sure!".

    It's boring as shit.

    Clearly whatever the Mac has up to now has only been compelling enough to make some people switch-- when are you going to get off your butts and make a compelling reason for the average guy to switch (read: Killer App).

    • The killer apps are all there. On both platforms. This concept may work on a game console, apparently it doesn't work with computers in the customer space.

      The average person has average needs that are well covered by an average system, wouldn't you say? Those swayed by killer apps were or are switching. They are however not average users, but people who for instance see Final Cut Pro, Logic, Aperture or any other mac only product as a way to get more bang for buck.

      As was the case with the original mac, when
  • As long as Apple is using commodity hardware, wouldn't you still theoretically be able to plug the latest and greatest graphics card into it (if it supports the interface), and still have it run fine with the Windows install? The graphics card working to its full potential in OS X would be in question, but for games in Windows it might still work. Interesting concept that someone might now be able to make their Mac have all the compatibility problems Windows systems are known for. (I'm not trying to troll
    • Yes, but only when the Intel-based equivalent of the current G5 desktops finally comes out. iMacs and MacBooks are non-upgradeable except in the trivial RAM-and-hard-drive sense.
    • Yeah, I think this is a good point and something that I'm sure Apple is thinking about. Of course, they don't really have to worry about it yet, because all three of their Intel lines so far are very un-customizable (no AGP nor PCI-E slots, for one thing).

      That will change once their full desktop computer comes out. It will have slots and it will lead to people whining about how card X works in Windows, "why doesn't it work when I boot into OSX?"

      The result: Apple will spend increasingly more energy on OSX

  • Before everyone gets too excited, has anyone taken a look at the drivers included with Boot Camp? If Apple is using customized drivers that have to be modified for the Mac hardware, then that means gamers will be reliant on Apple to release new drivers. As we all know how important drivers can be in getting new games to work, if we have to wait on Apple to release modified drivers, will Apple be releasing new drivers every single time ATI/Nvidia release drivers, or are we only going to get a couple of updat
  • I'll bet the software companies are breathing a sigh of relief. Now they won't have to deal with the hassle of porting their games and software to OS X. Why bother?

    -Eric

    • I suspect that "native" software (of all categories) will sell better than identical non-native software, so there would be some incentive for software producers to differentiate themselves by offering a "native" product. The question of course is whether or not this is a large enough incentive. From an absolute numbers point of view, there are certainly enough Mac users out there to make writing Mac software profitable, but since there are a much larger Windows users, the maximum profit is greater on the W

    • Now they won't have to deal with the hassle of porting their games and software to OS X. Why bother?

      It's easy, just go to the store and buy a copy of Windows for $200, then download this program from Apple and repartition and install Windows. Boot Windows and install the game. After that each time you want to play a game you just have to reboot while holding down a key and then switch to Windows and then click on the Start menu, then programs then run the game. Simple huh?

      Yeah, that will fly.

      90% or mor

  • Might Have Helped Me (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:03PM (#15076895) Homepage
    I switched in January of last year. Games were on thing that was holding me back, but I realized that I didn't play many games on my PC anyway (I do play a bunch on consoles). I've got my PowerBook G4 and I am very happy. The only thing I miss is counter-strike. I don't see why Valve won't release Half-Life for the Mac (I know they worked on porting it). I'd buy it again in a heartbeat just to play CS.

    Would this have helped me? It would give me reassurance, but I doubt I would have used it. Frankly rebooting takes too much time and it's just a hassle. I never reboot my Mac except when it needs security updates that require it. Otherwise it is on 24/7. I take it back and forth to school every day but I just close the lid and it goes into sleep instantly, and wakes up in about 2 seconds.

    Now when someone gets either something like WINE working so you could play games (TransGaming... you've got an opportunity here for tons of sales), or true virtulaization gets enabled (some say Apple will do that in 10.5) so that you don't HAVE to reboot, you can just keep Windows in "the background" then I would have JUMPED at the chance to switch to Mac.

    There are three things in life. There is having UNIXy goodness (got that), there is having great applications (iLife, Safari, and the ability to run Office/Photoshop), and there are games (got some, missing others). I'd say my Mac scores a 2.3/3.0. Windows is a 2.0/3.0 (games and apps).

    Keep up the great work Apple.

    So what will most people use this for? Nothing. I expect that virtualization will come out soon enough. All this will do is provide that reassurance for switchers until they go full-on Mac, and I doubt they would use it much.

  • DOES IT TRIPLE BOOT? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pizpot ( 622748 )
    Hey does anyone know if it triple or more boots? Can you do Linux and Win98 too for example? Or is this a XP only cahoots deal?
  • That will have quad-core conroe Processors (2Xdual-core), upgradeable graphics, and water cooling. Start saving up now boys!!

  • Macs Ascendent (Score:3, Insightful)

    by UriahZ ( 952170 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @04:21PM (#15079376)
    Note OS X's fast user switching. Did you know that Apple already has a patent on fast OS switching as well? After all, Boot Camp is a beta with more user-friendliness promised for even its full release in 10.5. Could we be looking at a future of seamless full-speed emulation ala Rosetta? That would be ideal, of course, but with OS switching potentially taking less than 30 seconds, it's not a far stretch to imagine a whole lot of people switching. Penny Arcade, who created a character specifically to pick on elitist Mac users, has switched and loves it. I do my gaming on a desktop replacement laptop now (had to sell the Alienware system in my cross-country moves), and the MacBook would be perfect for my needs. I'll be switching as soon as I can come up with the cash.

    In regards to the extra money spent on Apple hardware, that's less true than it used to be-- Alienware systems are actually MORE expensive than Macs these days. Are homebuilders and 'hardcore gamers' gonna be making the switch? No. But who gives a flying fuck about that 5% of the computing population? Regardless of what many people think, the 'hardcore' are not the ones out buying games-- the more casual gamers make up the vast majority of purchases. Most PC gamers (not the 'hardcore' minority) buy a handful of games a year, and replace their system every 3 years, with a few upgrades in the meantime.

    Which brings me to my next point: Apple hardware retains its resale value much much better than other brands (including Alienware). That leads to an interesting cycle that is even cheaper than the homebuilding route, for achieving reasonable performance with excellent polish and style and OS X exclusive software. In short:

    Step 1:
    Buy MacBook Pro for $2500.

    Step 2:
    Use it happily and effectively for 2 years.

    Step 3:
    Sell it for $1200 when you can no longer play with heavy graphical goodies.

    Step 4:
    Buy New MacBook Pro for $2500.

    Looking at it that way, you spend $650 a year after an initial $2500 investment to have a fantastic laptop that can play games. Now, before you jump all over me, be sure to look up your numbers. 2yo PowerBooks really do sell for $1200. Even for 12-inch. Additionally, PC laptops are what, $300 or so cheaper AT MOST at purchase. Yet they don't retain the same kind of resale value. You get back every penny you spent on the more expensive Apple product at resale and then some.

    So yeah. I'm gonna switch ASAP. And it's the right decision.

    Peace out.

  • People will make the switch... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pluvius ( 734915 ) <pluvius3&gmail,com> on Thursday April 06, 2006 @05:05PM (#15079855) Journal
    ...but it won't have anything to do with gaming.

    "Normal" gamers won't switch because they'll spend most of their time in Windows so they can play their games, thus defeating the purpose of buying a computer that costs much more than a non-Mac equivalent. There's also the hardcore gamer that has to be on the bleeding edge of everything, and Macs don't allow that sort of crazy upgrading.

    Casual gamers won't switch because they would've already switched to begin with if that was the only thing holding them back. Stuff like Solitaire and PopCap games has always been available on the Mac, and you don't need to dual-boot for it. (And no, if you're one of those gamers who plays a certain Windows-only game enough to where you're willing to use an OS you don't like just to play it, you fit in the first category, not this one.)

    Who are the people that will switch?

    • People who always wanted to switch but have one little Windows-only application that they absolutely require in order to do their jobs. Now they can spend most of their time on OSX and only go to Windows to use that application. This also applies to people who in addition have a Mac-only application that they require (thus meaning that they had to use two computers before), though I expect there are far fewer of those.

    • People who want to test their work on all three major OSes with a minimum of hassle. Now instead of needing at least two computers, you can test the same HTML on all of the big web browsers using the same hardware, for example. Not only does this keep you from having to switch back and forth, copying files between computers and so on, but you also don't have to worry about hardware problems tainting your results.

    • People who are curious about OSX and are ready to get a new computer, but don't want to spend all of that money on something that'll turn into a doorstop if they don't like it. The people that don't like OSX can just use the Mac like a regular PC, while the people that do can make the switch fully.

    • At least some people with more money than sense, e.g. those people who want to switch because of gaming, even though this is logically untenable due to what I've stated before.

    One thing that might happen is that these people switching will increase the marketshare significantly, which would encourage the big game developers to make OSX ports for all of their popular games, and then you'd see gamers start to switch. I'm sure this is what Jobs is hoping for. But it's not going to happen right away.

    Rob

  • The Ultimate Computer... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nmaster64 ( 867033 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @07:02PM (#15080746)
    Anyone else intrigued by the thought of the a grand all-in-one machine that incorporates the best of Windows, Mac, and Linux?

    I could really see myself one day throwing down the cash for a really powerful Mac with a massive hard drive and throwing Windows and Linux on there. Windows for gaming, Mac for apps, and Linux for programming. This idea excites me to know end.

    This article really hit me on the nose. I'm a gamer who's always been looking for a good reason to switch to Mac, and this really is the perfect answer. Too bad I just bought two new PCs about a year ago...it's gonna be a while before I make the big switch, but I'd guess I definitly will one day.

    The day where I can boot Fedora, Final Cut Pro, and Halo 2 all on the same machine will be a happy day indeed...

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close