The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
But its running faster.
Whilst pc's are doing other things, that takes up CPU usage for others.
That's why you have to go and get a 3ghz processor to make modern games run well, whilst you can run a game just aswell on a 1.3ghz on a mac.
Whilst pc's are doing other things, that takes up CPU usage for others.
That's why you have to go and get a 3ghz processor to make modern games run well, whilst you can run a game just aswell on a 1.3ghz on a mac.
mermoid wrote:
> Chad Niga wrote:
> Whilst your trying to see every frame on a PC the mac would be
> running smoother and faster.
>
> How do you work that one out?
>
> If someone asked me if I wanted to play a game on a machine ~50fps,
> or on one ~160fps, I know which I'd choose...
>
> The PC's framerate is higher, therefore the Mac is 'smoother and
> faster'?
>
> ???
But you wouldnt be able to tell any differance at all. So if someone said, either 50fps and more smoother play, or 160fps and less smoother play.
Which would you choose.
Cockend. Get a life.
> Chad Niga wrote:
> Whilst your trying to see every frame on a PC the mac would be
> running smoother and faster.
>
> How do you work that one out?
>
> If someone asked me if I wanted to play a game on a machine ~50fps,
> or on one ~160fps, I know which I'd choose...
>
> The PC's framerate is higher, therefore the Mac is 'smoother and
> faster'?
>
> ???
But you wouldnt be able to tell any differance at all. So if someone said, either 50fps and more smoother play, or 160fps and less smoother play.
Which would you choose.
Cockend. Get a life.
Chad Niga wrote:
> But its running faster.
What are you talking about "running faster"?
If the PC's framerate is higher, the game is running faster.
End.
I don't see what ridiculous explanation you could possibly come up with that says otherwise.
> Whilst pc's are doing other things, that takes up CPU usage for
> others.
At the minute, I have 11 processes running, 8 of which are using "0%" CPU time.
> That's why you have to go and get a 3ghz processor to make modern
> games run well, whilst you can run a game just aswell on a 1.3ghz on
> a mac.
I run HL2 at ~90fps, and I'm on a 2.2GHz Barton.
An Athlon FX55 is 2.6GHz, and it's far and away the fastest desktop chip available.
Therefore, your argument = moot.
And also, having a fast CPU is worthless anyway if your graphics card is underpowered.
> But its running faster.
What are you talking about "running faster"?
If the PC's framerate is higher, the game is running faster.
End.
I don't see what ridiculous explanation you could possibly come up with that says otherwise.
> Whilst pc's are doing other things, that takes up CPU usage for
> others.
At the minute, I have 11 processes running, 8 of which are using "0%" CPU time.
> That's why you have to go and get a 3ghz processor to make modern
> games run well, whilst you can run a game just aswell on a 1.3ghz on
> a mac.
I run HL2 at ~90fps, and I'm on a 2.2GHz Barton.
An Athlon FX55 is 2.6GHz, and it's far and away the fastest desktop chip available.
Therefore, your argument = moot.
And also, having a fast CPU is worthless anyway if your graphics card is underpowered.
Chad Niga wrote:
> But you wouldnt be able to tell any differance at all. So if someone
> said, either 50fps and more smoother play, or 160fps and less
> smoother play.
> Which would you choose.
What the HELL are you talking about?
You think a game that's running at 160fps won't be smooth?!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> But you wouldnt be able to tell any differance at all. So if someone
> said, either 50fps and more smoother play, or 160fps and less
> smoother play.
> Which would you choose.
What the HELL are you talking about?
You think a game that's running at 160fps won't be smooth?!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And by the way, you still seem to be having trouble justifying the whole "50fps is higher than 160fps" argument.
Good luck with that, I'm off to bed.
Good luck with that, I'm off to bed.
mermoid wrote:
> Chad Niga wrote:
> But its running faster.
>
> What are you talking about "running faster"?
> If the PC's framerate is higher, the game is running faster.
>
> End.
You idiot, a computer runs on a certain amount of bits, the higher frame rate, the more bits that uses up, so less bits can be used for graphics and sound, etc.
Use your brain.
>
> Whilst pc's are doing other things, that takes up CPU usage for
> others.
>
> At the minute, I have 11 processes running, 8 of which are using
> "0%" CPU time.
>
> That's why you have to go and get a 3ghz processor to make modern
> games run well, whilst you can run a game just aswell on a 1.3ghz on
> a mac.
>
> I run HL2 at ~90fps, and I'm on a 2.2GHz Barton.
> An Athlon FX55 is 2.4GHz, and it's far and away the fastest desktop
> chip available.
>
> Therefore, your argument = moot.
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.
>
> And also, having a fast CPU is worthless anyway if your graphics card
> is underpowered.
Again, i can garentee my graphics card in my mac will still allow me to run halo better then it can on your PC.
What are you trying to achieve, is there a challenge between your geeky friends, 'who can be geekiest' and the winner gets to bum the others?
You're winning.
> Chad Niga wrote:
> But its running faster.
>
> What are you talking about "running faster"?
> If the PC's framerate is higher, the game is running faster.
>
> End.
You idiot, a computer runs on a certain amount of bits, the higher frame rate, the more bits that uses up, so less bits can be used for graphics and sound, etc.
Use your brain.
>
> Whilst pc's are doing other things, that takes up CPU usage for
> others.
>
> At the minute, I have 11 processes running, 8 of which are using
> "0%" CPU time.
>
> That's why you have to go and get a 3ghz processor to make modern
> games run well, whilst you can run a game just aswell on a 1.3ghz on
> a mac.
>
> I run HL2 at ~90fps, and I'm on a 2.2GHz Barton.
> An Athlon FX55 is 2.4GHz, and it's far and away the fastest desktop
> chip available.
>
> Therefore, your argument = moot.
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.
>
> And also, having a fast CPU is worthless anyway if your graphics card
> is underpowered.
Again, i can garentee my graphics card in my mac will still allow me to run halo better then it can on your PC.
What are you trying to achieve, is there a challenge between your geeky friends, 'who can be geekiest' and the winner gets to bum the others?
You're winning.
Chad Niga wrote:
> It'll be no smoother, AS YOUR EYES CANT PHYSICALLY SEE THE
> DIFFERANCE. YOU _ MORON.
> YOUR EYES CANT PHYSICALLY SEE THE DIFFERANCE.
But it is faster, yes?
You can't see the difference, but it is faster.
Therefore, the game is running faster on PC, 3 times faster, in fact.
I've already told you, it doesn't matter if you can't tell the difference, what's under question is which computer is providing the highest level of performance, and in any game, if it's a toss-up between a top G5 or a top PC, the PC will win.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
> YOUR EYES CANT PHYSICALLY SEE THE DIFFERANCE.
No, they can't. But since when did "not being able to see a difference" mean "there is no difference"? Hmm?
Also, Halo, AFAIK, is available on Mac. It isn't running through an emulator.
Go run Doom 3 through an emulator and tell me how it goes.
This time, I'm actually going to go to bed...maybe..
> It'll be no smoother, AS YOUR EYES CANT PHYSICALLY SEE THE
> DIFFERANCE. YOU _ MORON.
> YOUR EYES CANT PHYSICALLY SEE THE DIFFERANCE.
But it is faster, yes?
You can't see the difference, but it is faster.
Therefore, the game is running faster on PC, 3 times faster, in fact.
I've already told you, it doesn't matter if you can't tell the difference, what's under question is which computer is providing the highest level of performance, and in any game, if it's a toss-up between a top G5 or a top PC, the PC will win.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
> YOUR EYES CANT PHYSICALLY SEE THE DIFFERANCE.
No, they can't. But since when did "not being able to see a difference" mean "there is no difference"? Hmm?
Also, Halo, AFAIK, is available on Mac. It isn't running through an emulator.
Go run Doom 3 through an emulator and tell me how it goes.
This time, I'm actually going to go to bed...maybe..
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.
What good is a faster machine if it makes no physical difference to the user?
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.
Page: