The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://homepage.mac.com/doctorperry/Sceen.png[/URL]
I just got a Mac, and made a new wallpaper last night.
To be honest, i think the whole mac desktop looks alot better then Windows.
What do you think?
I just got a Mac, and made a new wallpaper last night.
To be honest, i think the whole mac desktop looks alot better then Windows.
What do you think?
Page:
was this not origionally about a desktop looking better?
who cares what a desktop looks like girly-man
who cares about stuff u can see right?
who cares about stuff you can't see right?
who really gives a damn about anything right now eh?
i mean, 100's of 1000's of people just died for no good reason in asia and you are arguing about 60Hz or above or a graphics card having the power to fly a cruise missile?
and you are arguing at 1:50 am?
get a grip on reality, at least my excuse for being online at this hour is my mental instability, but you...
who cares what a desktop looks like girly-man
who cares about stuff u can see right?
who cares about stuff you can't see right?
who really gives a damn about anything right now eh?
i mean, 100's of 1000's of people just died for no good reason in asia and you are arguing about 60Hz or above or a graphics card having the power to fly a cruise missile?
and you are arguing at 1:50 am?
get a grip on reality, at least my excuse for being online at this hour is my mental instability, but you...
I think I really should just write what everyone's thinking (and everyone is correct, of course).
mermoidorandy pwned you bad, Chad boy.
mermoidorandy pwned you bad, Chad boy.
Chad Niga wrote:
> Please mermoid, think, a game doesnt run on a graphics card alone.
Correct.
> Try running whatever modern game on a P1 with the best graphics card
> on the market.
> According to what you're saying, it'll run super fast.
Erm, no I'm not.
I compared a top spec Mac G5 to a top spec PC.
The PC would win easily.
Athlon FX55, 2GB RAM, dual GeForce 6800s.
Not only is that graphics card more than twice as powerful as a 9600XT, but you can build PC systems with TWO of them.
The CPU may not be quite as fast (though FXs are highly impressive in games, so it may actually be more suited to the task than a G5), but it's more than enough power to drive those graphics cards to their potential.
Besides, having a faster CPU doesn't make up for having a poorer graphics card. You're defeating your own argument really.
> Please mermoid, think, a game doesnt run on a graphics card alone.
Correct.
> Try running whatever modern game on a P1 with the best graphics card
> on the market.
> According to what you're saying, it'll run super fast.
Erm, no I'm not.
I compared a top spec Mac G5 to a top spec PC.
The PC would win easily.
Athlon FX55, 2GB RAM, dual GeForce 6800s.
Not only is that graphics card more than twice as powerful as a 9600XT, but you can build PC systems with TWO of them.
The CPU may not be quite as fast (though FXs are highly impressive in games, so it may actually be more suited to the task than a G5), but it's more than enough power to drive those graphics cards to their potential.
Besides, having a faster CPU doesn't make up for having a poorer graphics card. You're defeating your own argument really.
Chad Niga wrote:
> You moron, if humans are the only ones playing it, then whats the
> point of having something that has no use apart from using more bits
> that would make the game run faster without.
> So unless a cat or something can play it, yeah, more fps then the
> human eye can see is good.
> But untill that day comes, you're a moron.
Lindgren wrote:
> What good is a faster machine if it makes no physical difference to
> the user?
For the third (fourth?) time, I'm not saying there is any point in it.
What I am doing is refuting his claim that "macs can do everything a PC can, but faster".
I am not saying that a Mac will be slow, I never have.
I am not saying that they are bad machines, since that is a blatant lie.
What I am saying is that macs cannot do everything faster than a PC.
If you took it as a mathematical comparison and disregarded what a human can actually perceive, the PC would win. Therefore, it is faster.
It's as simple as that and I really, really can't see how none of you seem to be able to comprehend it.
I can look at the stars, and I could see two directly beside each other.
One might be millions of light years away, but I can't see that.
Does that mean that it isn't?
The whole tree falling in an empty forest blah blah...no-one hears the sound, but that doesn't mean that there was no sound.
He can't tell that his fps is lower, but that doesn't mean it isn't.
> You moron, if humans are the only ones playing it, then whats the
> point of having something that has no use apart from using more bits
> that would make the game run faster without.
> So unless a cat or something can play it, yeah, more fps then the
> human eye can see is good.
> But untill that day comes, you're a moron.
Lindgren wrote:
> What good is a faster machine if it makes no physical difference to
> the user?
For the third (fourth?) time, I'm not saying there is any point in it.
What I am doing is refuting his claim that "macs can do everything a PC can, but faster".
I am not saying that a Mac will be slow, I never have.
I am not saying that they are bad machines, since that is a blatant lie.
What I am saying is that macs cannot do everything faster than a PC.
If you took it as a mathematical comparison and disregarded what a human can actually perceive, the PC would win. Therefore, it is faster.
It's as simple as that and I really, really can't see how none of you seem to be able to comprehend it.
I can look at the stars, and I could see two directly beside each other.
One might be millions of light years away, but I can't see that.
Does that mean that it isn't?
The whole tree falling in an empty forest blah blah...no-one hears the sound, but that doesn't mean that there was no sound.
He can't tell that his fps is lower, but that doesn't mean it isn't.
I hate Macs, i hate the apple logo.
But i mainly hate macs because they are the only main computer dealy that is not under the BILL GATES EMPIRE. And so long that is the case then we can't have as many arguments against bill gates not solving world dept because of his millions.
But i mainly hate macs because they are the only main computer dealy that is not under the BILL GATES EMPIRE. And so long that is the case then we can't have as many arguments against bill gates not solving world dept because of his millions.
Please mermoid, think, a game doesnt run on a graphics card alone.
Try running whatever modern game on a P1 with the best graphics card on the market.
According to what you're saying, it'll run super fast.
It wont you gimp, i wonder why.
Try running whatever modern game on a P1 with the best graphics card on the market.
According to what you're saying, it'll run super fast.
It wont you gimp, i wonder why.
Thank you, atleast someone on here has some common sense.
Chad Niga wrote:
> Oh yes.... I run halo on a 1.2mhz G4, and it isnt the fastet speed
> chip. It's slower hz then yours, but i can garentee it'll run better.
> You're an idiot again.
I'm very sure that a 1.2GHz G4 is faster than my 2.2GHz Barton, but I've never questioned CPU technology, in fact I seem to remember agreeing that Mac CPU technology is better than PC technology...
I was just correcting your assertion that you need a 3GHz+ chip to runs games.
> Again, i can garentee my graphics card in my mac will still allow me
> to run halo better then it can on your PC.
Not a chance.
Half the pixel fill rate, less than half the memory bandwidth, slower GPU...
> What are you trying to achieve
I'm trying to get it through your thick skull that it is not a simple case of one machine being better than the other.
The world isn't all black and white, you know.
> Oh yes.... I run halo on a 1.2mhz G4, and it isnt the fastet speed
> chip. It's slower hz then yours, but i can garentee it'll run better.
> You're an idiot again.
I'm very sure that a 1.2GHz G4 is faster than my 2.2GHz Barton, but I've never questioned CPU technology, in fact I seem to remember agreeing that Mac CPU technology is better than PC technology...
I was just correcting your assertion that you need a 3GHz+ chip to runs games.
> Again, i can garentee my graphics card in my mac will still allow me
> to run halo better then it can on your PC.
Not a chance.
Half the pixel fill rate, less than half the memory bandwidth, slower GPU...
> What are you trying to achieve
I'm trying to get it through your thick skull that it is not a simple case of one machine being better than the other.
The world isn't all black and white, you know.
What good is a faster machine if it makes no physical difference to the user?
You moron, if humans are the only ones playing it, then whats the point of having something that has no use apart from using more bits that would make the game run faster without.
So unless a cat or something can play it, yeah, more fps then the human eye can see is good.
But untill that day comes, you're a moron.
So unless a cat or something can play it, yeah, more fps then the human eye can see is good.
But untill that day comes, you're a moron.
Page: