The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Hmm, just been catching up and this thread caught my eye.
To sum things up, Chad is being stupid. There was one point that hasn't been debated with yet though, about the "50 FPS compared to 160 means that the CPU and GPU has more resources available". Well, that's correct.
However, as much as the brainwashing wants you to believe, it isn't Mac exclusive. It's up to the coders to implement a frame rate lock option; in Halo's case I think it was 30 fps - present on both Mac AND PC. Furthermore, again it's up to them to decide how and if the remaining resources are used.
With the frame rate lock option disabled, the bigger the fps obviously means the faster it will run, though you still don't seem to get that point. Without frame lock, your CPU and GPU will be utilized fully, so when it says 50 FPS it isn't, according to your point of view, doing "50 FPS with a lot left over for other stuff"; it's really more of a "50FPS is the best I can do with the hardware".
Anyway, hopefully once the newness of the Apple has worn off you can regain sense again.
To sum things up, Chad is being stupid. There was one point that hasn't been debated with yet though, about the "50 FPS compared to 160 means that the CPU and GPU has more resources available". Well, that's correct.
However, as much as the brainwashing wants you to believe, it isn't Mac exclusive. It's up to the coders to implement a frame rate lock option; in Halo's case I think it was 30 fps - present on both Mac AND PC. Furthermore, again it's up to them to decide how and if the remaining resources are used.
With the frame rate lock option disabled, the bigger the fps obviously means the faster it will run, though you still don't seem to get that point. Without frame lock, your CPU and GPU will be utilized fully, so when it says 50 FPS it isn't, according to your point of view, doing "50 FPS with a lot left over for other stuff"; it's really more of a "50FPS is the best I can do with the hardware".
Anyway, hopefully once the newness of the Apple has worn off you can regain sense again.
He still hasn't provided any evidence of how games perform when they're being run through a windows emulation program. There is a Mac version of Halo, so it is logical that it will run well, but I know for a fact that performance of any program will degrade when it is being run in an emulated environment, and I would imagine this degradation would be amplified given how intensive games are.
Chad, your options as we speak;
a) Give up, and concede that you are wrong
b) Keep trying to convince yourself what you're right while we all laugh at you
a) Give up, and concede that you are wrong
b) Keep trying to convince yourself what you're right while we all laugh at you
Chad, you make me weep.
Whether or not the end user can tell the difference is irrelevant.
Here's an example.
I shoot you in the head from point blank range with a pistol.
You die almost instantaneously.
I shoot you in the head from point blank range with a .6 cal rifle, with a much higher muzzle velocity.
You die almost insantaneously.
Would you have been able to tell the difference?
Does that mean there is no difference?
And, if you were comparing a top-end PC with a top-end G5 in a game using the same display settings, the PC would offer much higher (but indistinguishable) framerates.
However, and here's the key point - this means that you can up the resolution, up the level of detail and switch on FSAA and AF, while maintaining a highly playable framerate. This is because the graphics card has much more advanced rendering capabilities.
And guess what, the user could tell the difference!
The image will be much more defined, with sharper textures and smoothed edges.
Do this on a Mac, and it will be crippled, because a 9600XT simply wouldn't be able to cope with so much extra stress added on top of what it already has to render.
Whether or not the end user can tell the difference is irrelevant.
Here's an example.
I shoot you in the head from point blank range with a pistol.
You die almost instantaneously.
I shoot you in the head from point blank range with a .6 cal rifle, with a much higher muzzle velocity.
You die almost insantaneously.
Would you have been able to tell the difference?
Does that mean there is no difference?
And, if you were comparing a top-end PC with a top-end G5 in a game using the same display settings, the PC would offer much higher (but indistinguishable) framerates.
However, and here's the key point - this means that you can up the resolution, up the level of detail and switch on FSAA and AF, while maintaining a highly playable framerate. This is because the graphics card has much more advanced rendering capabilities.
And guess what, the user could tell the difference!
The image will be much more defined, with sharper textures and smoothed edges.
Do this on a Mac, and it will be crippled, because a 9600XT simply wouldn't be able to cope with so much extra stress added on top of what it already has to render.
Chad Niga wrote:
> The only argument he made that PC's were faster was by saying things
> that were completely useless to anyone who is human.
Exactly! Case closed!
You said the opposite, he proved otherwise (THE ABOVE ^^^^^ HINT HINT HINT), and now you're doing some kind of "it makes no visual difference" malarky.
> The only argument he made that PC's were faster was by saying things
> that were completely useless to anyone who is human.
Exactly! Case closed!
You said the opposite, he proved otherwise (THE ABOVE ^^^^^ HINT HINT HINT), and now you're doing some kind of "it makes no visual difference" malarky.
And to think, Chad - a 'special' like you knows a genius like Jim-hat.
I used to have some respect for you after that SR game.
I used to have some respect for you after that SR game.
Hahahahhahahahahahaha Chad.
You make me weep real tears.
You make me weep real tears.
The only argument he made that PC's were faster was by saying things that were completely useless to anyone who is human.
IE. Faster refresh rate then the human eye can see. And then i made the point that as PC do stupid things like that, they resultedly lack in things that make them faster where it actually counts, and that is were it is visable by the user. What use is it is the user cant tell its there?
As Macs actually focus on making things run faster to the user and not try to trick idiots like you into thinking 'the more useless things something has, the better it is' in the end, macs come out faster.
That's all he has been saying. If you search on google for Mac vs Pc you will find many sites that have speed comparison graphs and Mac always win.
So if you actually used your brains a bit, you would see that you're idiots who havent even used macs but you're still trying to argue against them.
You ever used a mac, let alone ran a game on one?
You pair of idiots. You should join the circus, there is a lack of clowns now a days.
IE. Faster refresh rate then the human eye can see. And then i made the point that as PC do stupid things like that, they resultedly lack in things that make them faster where it actually counts, and that is were it is visable by the user. What use is it is the user cant tell its there?
As Macs actually focus on making things run faster to the user and not try to trick idiots like you into thinking 'the more useless things something has, the better it is' in the end, macs come out faster.
That's all he has been saying. If you search on google for Mac vs Pc you will find many sites that have speed comparison graphs and Mac always win.
So if you actually used your brains a bit, you would see that you're idiots who havent even used macs but you're still trying to argue against them.
You ever used a mac, let alone ran a game on one?
You pair of idiots. You should join the circus, there is a lack of clowns now a days.
Chad Niga wrote:
> But to be fair, all he's done is said the same things over and over.
Ok ok ok ok.
Let me clear this up.
You said "Macs can do everything PCs can but faster".
Then, he ripped you to pieces providing evidence et al to prove otherwise.
Then you kept repeating this "but it makes no visual difference" crap to move away from your original statement.
Thus, he repeated what he said.
You complete and utter dullard you.
> But to be fair, all he's done is said the same things over and over.
Ok ok ok ok.
Let me clear this up.
You said "Macs can do everything PCs can but faster".
Then, he ripped you to pieces providing evidence et al to prove otherwise.
Then you kept repeating this "but it makes no visual difference" crap to move away from your original statement.
Thus, he repeated what he said.
You complete and utter dullard you.
Im sure if you asked him nicely, he'd bum you too.
But to be fair, all he's done is said the same things over and over. And i think we've already came to the conclusion that he isnt right. As Lidgerin said.
And after blabling on about how the graphics card is worse so it cant possibly run faster, he's now contradicted himself and said that its not all about the graphics card.
So to be honest, he doesnt know what he's talking about.
Geek.
But to be fair, all he's done is said the same things over and over. And i think we've already came to the conclusion that he isnt right. As Lidgerin said.
And after blabling on about how the graphics card is worse so it cant possibly run faster, he's now contradicted himself and said that its not all about the graphics card.
So to be honest, he doesnt know what he's talking about.
Geek.
Page: