Jump to content


For Mac And PC users

Mac PC Windows

  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

black_colt #21 Posted Jan 22 2016 - 01:56

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 3641 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View Postdstud208, on Jan 22 2016 - 01:19, said:

 

Well actually it wouldn't "trash" the mac at everything. I mentioned previously that macs are made for across the board performance, and people on video game forums are usually only concerned with video games. Yes, I will agree with you that Lenovo would "trash" the mac you posted but only with regards to video games - and yes, the mac does cost a few hundred more. For the sake of the argument I'm just going to put down the following:

  1. Lenovo has much faster graphics
  2. Lenovo is $130 cheaper
  3. Lenovo has larger disk space and double ram
  4. Mac doesn't need anti-virus (apple has their own built in - works amazing)
  5. Mac has much faster disk drive (don't try to tell me your gonna install all your games on that 8Gb ssd on the lenovo)
  6. Mac has a faster CPU (2.7 overclocked to 3.1 vs 2.6) - yes the Lenovo is a quad and the mac a duo, but the mac actually scores higher in both single and multi (9100 vs 8100 for multi core)

 

As mentioned earlier, for similar hardware you will get similar price - regardless of brand. The lenovo is geared towards gaming, the mac is geared towards life, its like comparing a truck and a sports car that have the same engine and trying to argue that one is better than the other. No, one is good at hauling wood, and the other is good at hauling ###.

 

The Lenovo will "trash" the mac at games, the Mac will "trash" the Lenovo at Pro-level applications (Large excel sheets, photoshop, etc). Its what these computers were made for that matters. If you find a "Pro" level pc, it would also get trashed at video gaming by that Lenovo, but it would also do the trashing at "Pro" things.

 

I wonder If the Lenovo would trash the Mac when running the same OS [both running MS Windows, both running Linux] ... if so which machine is the better?

 

The bottom line is that you should chose the hardware/software platform and price point that suits your needs after careful research on the platforms.  And if someone picks something different - then it is just different.

 

If you want to spend your time "tinkering" with your hardware - fine go for it.  Mac allows that - after all you can "crack" an iMac to upgrade the HD, add another HD. I did for my mid-2011 machine.

 

And the 27-inch iMac 5K Retina I just purchased should last me several years - love the 5K screen, SSD boot drive, 4GB video card, ability to upgrade the RAM to 64GB myself, ability to  boot between MS Windows [or Linux] and OS X on the same hardware.  All without "tinkering" with my hardware ...


I feel no need to defend that I chose Mac hardware over non-Mac hardware - just the need to correct the clueless, childish, incorrect statements of non-Mac users.


Edited by black_colt, Jan 22 2016 - 02:36.


black_colt #22 Posted Jan 22 2016 - 02:08

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 3641 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View PostSatyrAngel, on Jan 21 2016 - 06:00, said:

 

And if you want a Unix system you can always get a Linux distro.

I signed for an Apple Dev licence and the environment was pretty awful (then again, that was 4-5 years ago), i will pick Fedora, Devian or Archlinux any day.

 

Actually OS X has been registered under the UNIX03 Single Unix Specification as of OS X 10.5 - with the exception of OS X 10.7 - so it is a UNIX system.

 

Linux is not a UNIX system - it is a UNIX-like system and is not registered under any Single Unix Specification.  You can only call a system UNIX if it is registered under a Single Unix Specification.  Also I am quite sure Linus would have some very harsh words as well ... [Linux Is Not UNIX]

 

But you can run Linux on a Mac - either in a VM, dual boot [manually or with a boot loader], run from USB stick [painful if not USB 3].  Ran dual boot on my mid-2011 iMac for awhile - Ubuntu is the way to go baby  ;-)

 

Are you playing WoT on a Linux machine?  If so, I would like to hear about how you did it.

 

Since Apple introduced SIP as a default in OS X 10.11 you need to be careful to make sure the boot loader supports SIP.  That was making it difficult to keep ahead of the issues when booting into Linux so I started using BootCamp and MS Windows 10.

 

Currently running BootCamp on both my mid-2011 27-inch iMac [32GB RAM, 240GB SSD for OS X, 1TB WD Velociraptor for MS Windows 10 Pro] and my late-2015 iMac 5K Retina [16GB RAM - soon to be 64GB when the SIMMs are reasonably priced, partitioned 512GB SSD - 256GB for OS X and 256GB for MS Windows 10 Pro].

 

I only really boot into MS Windows to try out different WoT MODs to see if I should use them with the WoT Mac Wrapper.

 

As for Xcode - have you looked at what Apple has done with the Xcode IDE and Interface Builder lately? - light years different from even a couple of years ago


Edited by black_colt, Jan 22 2016 - 02:32.


dstud208 #23 Posted Jan 22 2016 - 05:02

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17784 battles
  • 1,791
  • [-BRO] -BRO
  • Member since:
    10-15-2012

View Postblack_colt, on Jan 21 2016 - 17:56, said:

 

I wonder If the Lenovo would trash the Mac when running the same OS [both running MS Windows, both running Linux] ... if so which machine is the better?

 

I feel no need to defend that I chose Mac hardware over non-Mac hardware - just the need to correct the clueless, childish, incorrect statements of non-Mac users.

 

Well I am of the opinion that regardless of the OS the Lenovo wins graphically but the Mac wins non-graphically (although they would both be great machines at whatever you wanna do). With that 5400 rpm drive the Lenovo would feel quite sluggish at day to day computing, but with its phat graphics card it would do pretty good at gaming (though loading screens would be painfully slow). the Mac has a pure solid state system and a faster cpu, making it much faster with the "normal" day to day computing, but the lack of a discrete card would (in my opinion - I didn't look up the clock speeds, I'll do that when I get home tonight) have it lag a little behind in rendering pretty scenes in real time.

 

Agreed! I love my retina MacBook Pro, this thing kicks butt! The machine can defend itself just fine! Especially since I use it for mainly engineering, and secondly for gaming, it does both very well!



dstud208 #24 Posted Jan 22 2016 - 07:38

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17784 battles
  • 1,791
  • [-BRO] -BRO
  • Member since:
    10-15-2012

Interesting, well believe it or not the GTX 960M isn't THAT much better, it is better no doubts there, but not much:

 

Intel Iris Pro 6100 runs 48 pipelines at 300 - 1100 mhz (heat dependant)

GTX 960M runs 640 pipelines at 1029 - 1097

 

In other words its better for long term continuous rendering (video gaming) but they are fairly equal at short burst rendering.

 

So I have done several of these comparisons over the years, but only ever on the high end computers. I'm not trying to prove a point, this is something I enjoy doing. I'll list the facts about each computer, draw my conclusions, and leave you to make up your own mind.

 

Lenovo Price: $1169 + Security Software (free if already owned?)

MacBook Pro Price: $1299

 

Category Lenovo Y50-70 13" MBP (Bottom end) Winner
CPU

i7 Quad 2.6Ghz

8112 Multi Score

i5 Duo 2.7 (3.1 OC)

9101 Multi Score

Mac
Graphics

GTX 960M

640 @ 1029 - 1097

Iris Pro 6100

48 @ 300 - 1100

Lenovo
Disk Space 1Tb 128Gb Lenovo
Disk Speed

5400RPM

105 mb/s read/write

SSD

>500 mb/s read/write

Mac
Ram Space 16 Gb 8 Gb Lenovo
Ram Speed 1600 mhz 1866 mhz Mac

 

I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that they each have their strengths. The clear strengths of the Lenovo are its "bulk", everything BIG, big graphics, big drive, big memory, but that comes at the cost of speed and finesse (except for the graphics of course). The strengths of the Mac are its speed and finesse over its "big-ness". They are practically at opposite ends of the computing spectrum. Overall I would argue that they are the "same" value of machine (setting aside things like operating systems). One has advantages here, the other has advantages there. You buy the one you do because its strengths cater to what you do with it.

 

On the subject of World of Tanks:

 

  • The Lenovo has "MORE" to it, so it will render lighting, textures, wind, shadows, etc better. At high graphics settings it will definitely have a higher frame rate than the Mac (assuming it can control its heat). You pay for this though with long loading times and high numbers of effects dropping frame rates. You will probably enter the match around the end of the countdown - this will get worse with higher textures and more HD tanks. Also the number of explosions or burning tanks around you will hurt your frame rate more (cpu intensive) but the "prettiness" of the explosions won't.

 

  • The Mac is significantly faster in all regards but graphics. Load times will be near instant, the number of explosions won't hurt frame rate as much, but the prettiness of them will. Medium or higher lighting, shadows, etc will reduce frame rates more, but special effects, track effects, object rendering (at higher distances from you. like trucks, render range, grass, fences, etc) will have less of an impact. On standard graphics the Mac "would" have higher frame rates (I say "would" but they will both probably be capped at 60 fps) than the Lenovo (un-capped it would be something like Mac: 120, Lenovo: 100, kind of a pointless comparison though)

 

So when your making your decision, and you want a "lower end" laptop. Remember it can't have everything. Using these two as an example the choice is do you want things to look beautiful but have the render range of objects reduced and long loading times? Or would you rather have high rendering ranges, short loading times, but miss out on the beauty of high quality lighting and explosions (more but uglier - if that makes sense)? The comparison in this example are between a Mac and PC, but pretty much any brand can be compared in this way.

 

I don't think anyone can really tell you what you want, thats something for you to decide. If you have more $$$$ at your disposal then you can go out and buy a top end 15" rMBP or a top end 15" gaming laptop. In the end you will find this general trend will be the same. My brother and I did this, we compared specs and performance similar to here and the results were the same. For the same $$$ his performed better at GPU stuff, mine at CPU stuff (his pretty but less, mine more but uglier) though the comparison was much further up the scale (so "ugly" and "less" were still really good).

 

Anyways, I'm done, I think we have beat this horse dead and into the ground, I think I've made my point. This thread has strayed far far away from what Endyrym first wanted it to be. Remember, this is a game, we are all here to have fun. Regardless of hardware lets just have fun together shall we?



black_colt #25 Posted Jan 22 2016 - 19:13

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 3641 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View Postdstud208, on Jan 22 2016 - 07:38, said:

Interesting, well believe it or not the GTX 960M isn't THAT much better, it is better no doubts there, but not much:

 

Intel Iris Pro 6100 runs 48 pipelines at 300 - 1100 mhz (heat dependant)

GTX 960M runs 640 pipelines at 1029 - 1097

 

In other words its better for long term continuous rendering (video gaming) but they are fairly equal at short burst rendering.

 

So I have done several of these comparisons over the years, but only ever on the high end computers. I'm not trying to prove a point, this is something I enjoy doing. I'll list the facts about each computer, draw my conclusions, and leave you to make up your own mind.

 

Lenovo Price: $1169 + Security Software (free if already owned?)

MacBook Pro Price: $1299

 

Category Lenovo Y50-70 13" MBP (Bottom end) Winner
CPU

i7 Quad 2.6Ghz

8112 Multi Score

i5 Duo 2.7 (3.1 OC)

9101 Multi Score

Mac
Graphics

GTX 960M

640 @ 1029 - 1097

Iris Pro 6100

48 @ 300 - 1100

Lenovo
Disk Space 1Tb 128Gb Lenovo
Disk Speed

5400RPM

105 mb/s read/write

SSD

>500 mb/s read/write

Mac
Ram Space 16 Gb 8 Gb Lenovo
Ram Speed 1600 mhz 1866 mhz Mac

 

I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that they each have their strengths. The clear strengths of the Lenovo are its "bulk", everything BIG, big graphics, big drive, big memory, but that comes at the cost of speed and finesse (except for the graphics of course). The strengths of the Mac are its speed and finesse over its "big-ness". They are practically at opposite ends of the computing spectrum. Overall I would argue that they are the "same" value of machine (setting aside things like operating systems). One has advantages here, the other has advantages there. You buy the one you do because its strengths cater to what you do with it.

 

On the subject of World of Tanks:

 

  • The Lenovo has "MORE" to it, so it will render lighting, textures, wind, shadows, etc better. At high graphics settings it will definitely have a higher frame rate than the Mac (assuming it can control its heat). You pay for this though with long loading times and high numbers of effects dropping frame rates. You will probably enter the match around the end of the countdown - this will get worse with higher textures and more HD tanks. Also the number of explosions or burning tanks around you will hurt your frame rate more (cpu intensive) but the "prettiness" of the explosions won't.

 

  • The Mac is significantly faster in all regards but graphics. Load times will be near instant, the number of explosions won't hurt frame rate as much, but the prettiness of them will. Medium or higher lighting, shadows, etc will reduce frame rates more, but special effects, track effects, object rendering (at higher distances from you. like trucks, render range, grass, fences, etc) will have less of an impact. On standard graphics the Mac "would" have higher frame rates (I say "would" but they will both probably be capped at 60 fps) than the Lenovo (un-capped it would be something like Mac: 120, Lenovo: 100, kind of a pointless comparison though)

 

So when your making your decision, and you want a "lower end" laptop. Remember it can't have everything. Using these two as an example the choice is do you want things to look beautiful but have the render range of objects reduced and long loading times? Or would you rather have high rendering ranges, short loading times, but miss out on the beauty of high quality lighting and explosions (more but uglier - if that makes sense)? The comparison in this example are between a Mac and PC, but pretty much any brand can be compared in this way.

 

I don't think anyone can really tell you what you want, thats something for you to decide. If you have more $$$$ at your disposal then you can go out and buy a top end 15" rMBP or a top end 15" gaming laptop. In the end you will find this general trend will be the same. My brother and I did this, we compared specs and performance similar to here and the results were the same. For the same $$$ his performed better at GPU stuff, mine at CPU stuff (his pretty but less, mine more but uglier) though the comparison was much further up the scale (so "ugly" and "less" were still really good).

 

Anyways, I'm done, I think we have beat this horse dead and into the ground, I think I've made my point. This thread has strayed far far away from what Endyrym first wanted it to be. Remember, this is a game, we are all here to have fun. Regardless of hardware lets just have fun together shall we?

 

dstud208

 

No need to justify our choice of Mac to anyone.  All that matters is that you did the research and selected the machine based on your own personal needs.

 

It is not mine - or anyone else - right to criticise your choice. Our duty here on the Forum is to provide clear and concise information so users can/find out how to correct issues in a common arena.

 

 



dstud208 #26 Posted Jan 22 2016 - 19:40

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17784 battles
  • 1,791
  • [-BRO] -BRO
  • Member since:
    10-15-2012

View Postblack_colt, on Jan 22 2016 - 11:13, said:

 

dstud208

 

No need to justify our choice of Mac to anyone.  All that matters is that you did the research and selected the machine based on your own personal needs.

 

It is not mine - or anyone else - right to criticise your choice. Our duty here on the Forum is to provide clear and concise information so users can/find out how to correct issues in a common arena.

 

Well I was trying to be as unbiased as possible, Hopefully someone find it informative. I quite enjoy doing an in depth comparison of machines regardless of branding.



ThE_MarD #27 Posted Jan 22 2016 - 22:12

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15972 battles
  • 723
  • [TBR] TBR
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Heyyo,

 

View Postdstud208, on Jan 21 2016 - 09:28, said:

Amen bro!! Couldn't agree with you more!!

 

 

Well thats not entirely true. The correct statement would be be "There is no GAME a Mac can do that a PC can do as well for a fraction of the price", there are lots of things a PC can't do any better than a mac for the same $$$ of hardware. If you truly compare ALL the stats and build/buy yourself a truly equivalent PC (not better, not worse, but the same) you will end up spending about the exact same price. Perfect example of this is the Dell XPS 15. The thing is, macs are workstation class computers. They are built for the office, for programs that require powerful chips across the board, not just one mega powerful graphics card. Also side note: I get 60+ fps on medium settings, not amazing but also not "limiting" as you put it.
 
Yes, PC's are  much better for gaming (generally) for the same $, not trying to argue with that. But mac's aren't made for gaming, they're made for the workplace. Something thats left over from the old days of trying to be taken seriously, back when Mac's Apple computers were the go-to gaming hardware - a position that was viewed to be "inferior". 
 
Anyways, the point is lets all just be friends! We are here to enjoy a game! It really doesn't matter what hardware your using as long as you can play and have fun!

 

Well... technically? Mac was at a point in time the go-to for gaming... but they changed their focus to trying to get that workstation view.

 

Gameranx made a fantastic video about it tbh:

 

 

and it still rings true to this day! Just look at their current hardware. It's still curated for work and efficiency being built on the x86 platform while using a derivative of Unix which is super efficient. The only real reason gaming is being considered on Mac again is essentially Valve doing their big push with OSX support for Steam and of course game engines making it a lot easier for multi-platform... that's the main reason why indie games get a pretty high chance of a Mac and Linux port is engines like Unity (just to be clear though I hate Unity since I have a PC gaming rig that relies on NVIDIA SLI and their game engine isn't friendly to AMD Crossfire and NVIDIA SLI).

 

Of course, WINE and premium projects like Crossover by CodeWeavers definitely helps a lot since they're fantastic dynamic recompilers... but they still don't run as good as natively on the same hardware. Much like console emulators that use a lot of dynamic recompiling I guess.

 

So that's pretty much how it goes... OSX definitely has the capabilities to game and so does the hardware... but that hasn't been Apple's focus since the 80's and unless Apple does something serious to try and change that? It won't change... Same can be said about Linux. They're not viewed for gaming and share many traits similar to Apple... heck, the underlying structure on both are Unix anyways...

 

Vulkan API definitely has the potential to really bring Linux and Apple back into a competitive state for gaming as long as they start advertising for it and game developers start supporting it and their operating systems... but we've seen the hype for DirectX 12 and demos and all that... yet Vulkan only gets minor mentions... so tbh, I think history will just repeat itself.

 

Since World of Tanks is the main game I play though? I super hope they do support Vulkan API. It would be fantastic for everyone playing the game which of course includes Windows XP users.


Edited by ThE_MarD, Jan 24 2016 - 05:17.


Endyrym #28 Posted Jan 23 2016 - 04:11

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 9726 battles
  • 378
  • [RYM] RYM
  • Member since:
    03-21-2014
Alright guys... PC Is definetly better with graphics, and running games, but BUT... Players have preferences. Lets just get along and roll out <:) 

Edited by Endyrym, Jan 23 2016 - 04:14.


dagengster #29 Posted Jan 23 2016 - 05:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 12404 battles
  • 4,275
  • Member since:
    02-13-2012

Just checked this thread again...

holly poops u ppl are opinionated :amazed:

If u copy all the text from this thread and put it into a book format, u'd probs have like a 500 page book :teethhappy:


This is why I usually like to avoid these "discussions".

But yes, both have advantages, depends on what u need (or want)

Like I said in my first post... comparing a Rolls Royce, some import tuner car and a Bugatti here



black_colt #30 Posted Jan 23 2016 - 20:15

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 3641 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View Postdagengster, on Jan 23 2016 - 05:21, said:

Just checked this thread again...

holly poops u ppl are opinionated :amazed:

If u copy all the text from this thread and put it into a book format, u'd probs have like a 500 page book :teethhappy:


This is why I usually like to avoid these "discussions".

But yes, both have advantages, depends on what u need (or want)

Like I said in my first post... comparing a Rolls Royce, some import tuner car and a Bugatti here

 

Really - we are opinionated ... I think that is the kettle calling the pot black

 

It is not about comparing a Rolls Royce, etc. ... Apple decided to emphasize certain features for what they consider their market.  They seem to be a very good job of it. We will have to see what their results are for the quarter ending June 2015.

 

So if you do not want to purchase a Mac - so be it. That is your personal choice.

 

I - and I am pretty sure all Mac users - welcome factual discussions regarding the differences between systems [i.e. MS Windows on Intel, Linux on Intel, and Mac] - NOT an attack on our personal choice.

 

What people seem to forget is that Mac runs on Intel and you can run multiple different OS[s] on it. So we can have a discussion on how does the Intel hardware [Mac] perform using a particular OS.

 

Linux absolutely screams on my hardware but does not run WoT well. MS Windows runs very well and can play WoT natively. OS X absolutely screams and can run the WoT Mac Wrapper fairly well.

 

So I guess I have drive three high-performance brands with one vehicle ... sounds like a great value to me

 

 

 



ThE_MarD #31 Posted Jan 23 2016 - 21:08

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15972 battles
  • 723
  • [TBR] TBR
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Heyyo,

 

View Postblack_colt, on Jan 23 2016 - 12:15, said:

 

Really - we are opinionated ... I think that is the kettle calling the pot black

 

It is not about comparing a Rolls Royce, etc. ... Apple decided to emphasize certain features for what they consider their market.  They seem to be a very good job of it. We will have to see what their results are for the quarter ending June 2015.

 

So if you do not want to purchase a Mac - so be it. That is your personal choice.

 

I - and I am pretty sure all Mac users - welcome factual discussions regarding the differences between systems [i.e. MS Windows on Intel, Linux on Intel, and Mac] - NOT an attack on our personal choice.

 

What people seem to forget is that Mac runs on Intel and you can run multiple different OS[s] on it. So we can have a discussion on how does the Intel hardware [Mac] perform using a particular OS.

 

Linux absolutely screams on my hardware but does not run WoT well. MS Windows runs very well and can play WoT natively. OS X absolutely screams and can run the WoT Mac Wrapper fairly well.

 

So I guess I have drive three high-performance brands with one vehicle ... sounds like a great value to me

Well, technically any PC can run OSX as well amigo. I've dabbled in that in the past and tbh? I'm typing on my PC that runs OSX. :P

 

 

As you can see, I've even modified my case to sport the proper logo hehe. ;)

 

 

I'm also essentially running all the same hardware as a Mac Pro has had... i7-3770k, GTX 680 (SLI obviously doesn't work in OSX, but I attribute that to OpenGL since OpenGL v4.x in Linux and heck, Windows doesn't even work in SLI... see RAGE and Wolfenstein: New Order as prime examples)

 

Soon I'm planning though on selling off my GTX 680 cards.. they're the 2GB versions and I get seriously crippled performance in recent titles since I run out of VRAM too quickly... especially in games that say "minimum system requirements: 2GB VRAM" so... I might end up getting an AMD R9 390 since the price is good on it... but that will essentially mean the end of gaming on Linux or OSX for meow until Vulkan releases because AMD drivers outside of Windows is sadly about half a decade behind NVIDIA... my guess is due to lack of developer teams.

 

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=steamos-22-gpus&num=2

 

That's... beyond crazy that the GTX 780 Ti can beat an AMD R9 Fury!!! 

 

and sadly the AMD Crimson driver on Linux was quite the bummer too... probably same issue of development focus... essentially that's why you don't see a Steam Machine running AMD as well.

 

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-crimson-linux&num=1

 

But? Like I said, I'm hopeful that Vulkan will bring OSX and Linux gaming closer performance-wise to how games are on DirectX and Windows... which of course also raises the question of "If a game supports DirectX 12 only and WINE gets Vulkan support and able to dynamically recompile DirectX 12 calls to Vulkan... will performance still be better than DirectX to OpenGL???"

 

Seriously though... the future's going to be super interesting for PC Gaming in general! The potential!!! I see it!!! :medal:


Edited by ThE_MarD, Jan 23 2016 - 21:10.


black_colt #32 Posted Jan 23 2016 - 21:41

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 3641 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View PostThE_MarD, on Jan 23 2016 - 21:08, said:

Heyyo,

 

Well, technically any PC can run OSX as well amigo. I've dabbled in that in the past and tbh? I'm typing on my PC that runs OSX. :P

 

 

As you can see, I've even modified my case to sport the proper logo hehe. ;)

 

 

I'm also essentially running all the same hardware as a Mac Pro has had... i7-3770k, GTX 680 (SLI obviously doesn't work in OSX, but I attribute that to OpenGL since OpenGL v4.x in Linux and heck, Windows doesn't even work in SLI... see RAGE and Wolfenstein: New Order as prime examples)

 

Soon I'm planning though on selling off my GTX 680 cards.. they're the 2GB versions and I get seriously crippled performance in recent titles since I run out of VRAM too quickly... especially in games that say "minimum system requirements: 2GB VRAM" so... I might end up getting an AMD R9 390 since the price is good on it... but that will essentially mean the end of gaming on Linux or OSX for meow until Vulkan releases because AMD drivers outside of Windows is sadly about half a decade behind NVIDIA... my guess is due to lack of developer teams.

 

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=steamos-22-gpus&num=2

 

That's... beyond crazy that the GTX 780 Ti can beat an AMD R9 Fury!!! 

 

and sadly the AMD Crimson driver on Linux was quite the bummer too... probably same issue of development focus... essentially that's why you don't see a Steam Machine running AMD as well.

 

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-crimson-linux&num=1

 

But? Like I said, I'm hopeful that Vulkan will bring OSX and Linux gaming closer performance-wise to how games are on DirectX and Windows... which of course also raises the question of "If a game supports DirectX 12 only and WINE gets Vulkan support and able to dynamically recompile DirectX 12 calls to Vulkan... will performance still be better than DirectX to OpenGL???"

 

Seriously though... the future's going to be super interesting for PC Gaming in general! The potential!!! I see it!!! :medal:

 

While it may be technically possible, it is actually it is a violation of the OS X license [2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. - I. Other Use Restrictions - http://images.apple....OSX1011.pdf] to run OS X [OS X Yosemite, OS X Mavericks, OS X Mountain Lion, OS X Lion or OS X Snow Leopard] on any non-Apple-branded computer.

 

I. Other Use Restrictions. The grants set forth in this License do not permit you to, and you agree not to, install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so. Except as otherwise permitted by the terms of this License or otherwise licensed by Apple: (i) only one user may use the Apple Software at a time, and (ii) you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be run or used by multiple computers at the same time. You may not rent, lease, lend, sell, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. 

 

If you respect licenses and copyright law then you should not promote/run illegal software.

 

That said, sweet setup ... looks like Linux would absolutely scream on that system. 

 

Are you running Linux? If so, what distribution? I am partial to Ubuntu myself.



ThE_MarD #33 Posted Jan 23 2016 - 23:42

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15972 battles
  • 723
  • [TBR] TBR
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Heyyo,

 

For distro? Tbh I'm more of a fan of desktop environments. XFCE is nice and responsive on any PC I've installed it on and I love Mate since it reminds me of my original ventures into Linux with Gnome2 since that is what Mate is based off of.

 

That said? Xubuntu and Ubuntu Mate are definitely my favorites for Ubuntu side of things but I definitely also love Manjaro since it's based off of Arch and is always bleeding edge on the software updates.. but of course some stability issues can happen. I guess it's kind of the same idea nowadays that Microsoft has with the Windows Insider "fast ring".. that newer build of Win 10 sounds interesting but I couldn't justify using it and getting slammed with certain games not wanting to run lol...

 

Yeah my main PC definitely works good for gaming... but like I said, OpenGL hasn't been multi-GPU friendly for quite a while so I don't get any benefit from the second GPU in SLI... essentially? The only game engine coded to work with SLI on Linux is ID Tech 4 Engine... but hardware these days is so fast that a single GTX 680 could easily push 100+ FPS...

 

I've been using the Windows 10 insider preview on the "slow ring" and it's been very good to me thus far.

 

View Postblack_colt, on Jan 21 2016 - 17:56, said:

I wonder If the Lenovo would trash the Mac when running the same OS [both running MS Windows, both running Linux] ... if so which machine is the better?

 

The bottom line is that you should chose the hardware/software platform and price point that suits your needs after careful research on the platforms.  And if someone picks something different - then it is just different.

 

If you want to spend your time "tinkering" with your hardware - fine go for it.  Mac allows that - after all you can "crack" an iMac to upgrade the HD, add another HD. I did for my mid-2011 machine.

 

And the 27-inch iMac 5K Retina I just purchased should last me several years - love the 5K screen, SSD boot drive, 4GB video card, ability to upgrade the RAM to 64GB myself, ability to  boot between MS Windows [or Linux] and OS X on the same hardware.  All without "tinkering" with my hardware ...


I feel no need to defend that I chose Mac hardware over non-Mac hardware - just the need to correct the clueless, childish, incorrect statements of non-Mac users.

 

Tbh? That's an interesting question, but in reality? Performance on a non-Mac notebook should be essentially the same as an official Macbook since they're both based off the same x86 architecture... the only difference would be the other details like "workstation" grade hardware versus "consumer" grade... stuff like if the RAM is ECC or non-ECC, what their rated clock speeds are at and of course cooling.

 

So I'd say the result (at least gaming-wise) would lean more on "which one has a more efficient cooler and higher clock speeds on the same hardware?" because that's where the only actual performance differences would come from.

 

That's the thing too with the newest Mac Pro's, they're focused so heavily on workstation design for slick units with quiet operation with workstation-grade parts (Xeon processors over the consumer lineup and ECC RAM with AMD FirePro GPUs which of course run into that Multi-GPU issue with OpenGL v4.x I mentioned before so it doesn't help in gaming on OSX) and even on Windows machines it has been proven that GPUs focused on CAD have either the same or worse performance than consumer-grade GPUs that focus on gaming. Of course, NVIDIA make the Titan series which is a mixture of both... but it's also a super steep price point to have a GPU that mixes workstation and consumer grade hardware...

 

I still say OSX and Linux have a place in gaming because heck, I used to love playing games on my good ol' Macintosh LC 575 (and yes, I convinced my parents to get that comm expansion dialup modem... it was something like $20 a month for 10 hours of dial up internet haha) even though I could only run Duke Nukem 3D at 640x480 or my framerate tanked hard haha but Warcraft II ran perfectly. Same with Marathon... OH! Speaking of? Remember when Bungie was a game developer that was mainly focused on developing games on Mac and doing some PC ports??? but of course Microsoft was expanding into the console market and wanted a killer title to launch the Xbox with and with everything that was being shown about Halo? It was a super smart move that Microsoft bought out Bungie and made Halo an Xbox exclusive game and only eventually doing ports to Windows and Mac... which of course also further pushed Mac out of the computer gaming spotlight by losing the biggest developer of games for Mac.

 

I also still remember that Mac and playing games from Spiderweb Software in my childhood and their fantastic RPGs like the Exile series... it's good to see they're still kicking around and making RPGs and even keeping up on the OSX versions and iOS too. :)

 

 

derp! Forgot to even comment on Linux with World of Tanks lol... using the WINE wrapper? Runs like poop of course... virtual machine? Still nowhere near as close to native performance... using CrossOver for Linux? Very similar performance to the Official Mac Wrapper... then again, both are based on CodeWeaver's work so that's understandable... I bet World of Tanks would run a lot better if the Windows version had native OpenGL support since that's one less step that CrossOver would need to make... because if you compare World of Tanks perfromance to say War Thunder which DOES have native OpenGL support in Windows, Linux and OSX? It runs really darn slick... but of course, I'm here because I enjoy the gameplay of World of Tanks more. I'm not so much a fan of their super-realism and the whole one-shot death a lot really sucks when you get a poop team from the matchmaker and you get stuck in your spawn area because your team whimpers and then you just wish you could finish all your respawns so you could try another match... sigh. It's super depressing playing War Thunder and getting top of the team when you rarely play the game just to see how the new updates work like how NVIDIA GameWorks on War Thunder isn't broken... but then again, it wasn't rushed into the game like Ubisoft does with their terrible PC ports...


Edited by ThE_MarD, Jan 24 2016 - 05:18.


black_colt #34 Posted Jan 24 2016 - 02:13

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 3641 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View PostThE_MarD, on Jan 23 2016 - 23:42, said:

Heyyo,

 

For distro? Tbh I'm more of a fan of desktop environments. XFCE is nice and responsive on any PC I've installed it on and I love Mate since it reminds me of my original ventures into Linux with Gnome2 since that is what Mate is based off of.

 

That said? Xubuntu and Ubuntu Mate are definitely my favorites for Ubuntu side of things but I definitely also love Manjaro since it's based off of Arch and is always bleeding edge on the software updates.. but of course some stability issues can happen. I guess it's kind of the same idea nowadays that Microsoft has with the Windows Insider "fast ring".. that newer build of Win 10 sounds interesting but I couldn't justify using it and getting slammed with certain games not wanting to run lol...

 

Yeah my main PC definitely works good for gaming... but like I said, OpenGL hasn't been multi-GPU friendly for quite a while so I don't get any benefit from the second GPU in SLI... essentially? The only game engine coded to work with SLI on Linux is ID Tech 4 Engine... but hardware these days is so fast that a single GTX 680 could easily push 100+ FPS...

 

I've been using the Windows 10 insider preview on the "slow ring" and it's been very good to me thus far.

 

 

Tbh? That's an interesting question, but in reality? Performance on a non-Mac notebook should be essentially the same as an official Macbook since they're both based off the same x86 architecture... the only difference would be the other details like "workstation" grade hardware versus "consumer" grade... stuff like if the RAM is ECC or non-ECC, what their rated clock speeds are at and of course cooling.

 

So I'd say the result (at least gaming-wise) would lean more on "which one has a more efficient cooler and higher clock speeds on the same hardware?" because that's where the only actual performance differences would come from.

 

That's the thing too with the newest Mac Pro's, they're focused so heavily on workstation design for slick units with quiet operation with workstation-grade parts (Xeon processors over the consumer lineup and ECC RAM with AMD FirePro GPUs which of course run into that Multi-GPU issue with OpenGL v4.x I mentioned before so it doesn't help in gaming on OSX) and even on Windows machines it has been proven that GPUs focused on CAD have either the same or worse performance than consumer-grade GPUs that focus on gaming. Of course, NVIDIA make the Titan series which is a mixture of both... but it's also a super steep price point to have a GPU that mixes workstation and consumer grade hardware...

 

I still say OSX and Linux have a place in gaming because heck, I used to love playing games on my good ol' Macintosh LC 575 (and yes, I convinced my parents to get that comm expansion dialup modem... it was something like $20 a month for 10 hours of dial up internet haha) even though I could only run Duke Nukem 3D at 640x480 or my framerate tanked hard haha but Warcraft II ran perfectly. Same with Marathon... OH! Speaking of? Remember when Bungie was a game developer that was mainly focused on developing games on Mac and doing some PC ports??? but of course Microsoft was expanding into the console market and wanted a killer title to launch the Xbox with and with everything that was being shown about Halo? It was a super smart move that Microsoft bought out Bungie and made Halo an Xbox exclusive game and only eventually doing ports to Windows and Mac... which of course also further pushed Mac out of the computer gaming spotlight by losing the biggest developer of games for Mac.

 

I also still remember that Mac and playing games from Spiderweb Software in my childhood and their fantastic RPGs like the Exile series... it's good to see they're still kicking around and making RPGs and even keeping up on the OSX versions and iOS too. :)

 

 

derp! Forgot to even comment on Linux with World of Tanks lol... using the WINE wrapper? Runs like poop of course... virtual machine? Still nowhere near as close to native performance... using CrossOver for Linux? Very similar performance to the Official Mac Wrapper... then again, both are based on Transgaming's work so that's understandable... I bet World of Tanks would run a lot better if the Windows version had native OpenGL support since that's one less step that CrossOver would need to make... because if you compare World of Tanks perfromance to say War Thunder which DOES have native OpenGL support in Windows, Linux and OSX? It runs really darn slick... but of course, I'm here because I enjoy the gameplay of World of Tanks more. I'm not so much a fan of their super-realism and the whole one-shot death a lot really sucks when you get a poop team from the matchmaker and you get stuck in your spawn area because your team whimpers and then you just wish you could finish all your respawns so you could try another match... sigh. It's super depressing playing War Thunder and getting top of the team when you rarely play the game just to see how the new updates work like how NVIDIA GameWorks on War Thunder isn't broken... but then again, it wasn't rushed into the game like Ubisoft does with their terrible PC ports...

Thanks for the update.

 

Performance is such an imprecise word.  If you are talking about raw performance numbers then yes they are similar. But raw performance alone does not automatically make something good - the interaction between the OS, hardware, and software does.

 

What I have been trying to impress on "readers" is that Wargaming chose to not release an OS X native game but they did commission a Mac version using WINE.  That is their choice as the developer.

 

Us Mac users do not need people dissing our choice of computing platform when it is NOT the fault of Apple or us that the game does not run the same on OS X as the MS Window native game.  There are many places to point fingers - let us not forget Microsoft who has chosen to not port DirectX to the Mac platform.

 

So if anyone is to blame on the inequality of game performance between OS X and MS Windows when that game uses DirectX - then it is Microsoft as they have created an uneven playing field by not releasing DirectX for OS X.

 

I, for one, applaud Wargaming for commissioning a way for us OS X users to enjoy their game and am glad to run it primarily on OS X versus MS Windows.

 

 

 

 


Edited by black_colt, Jan 24 2016 - 02:56.


ThE_MarD #35 Posted Jan 24 2016 - 05:39

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15972 battles
  • 723
  • [TBR] TBR
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Heyyo,

 

View Postblack_colt, on Jan 23 2016 - 18:13, said:

Thanks for the update.

 

Performance is such an imprecise word.  If you are talking about raw performance numbers then yes they are similar. But raw performance alone does not automatically make something good - the interaction between the OS, hardware, and software does.

 

What I have been trying to impress on "readers" is that Wargaming chose to not release an OS X native game but they did commission a Mac version using WINE.  That is their choice as the developer.

 

Us Mac users do not need people dissing our choice of computing platform when it is NOT the fault of Apple or us that the game does not run the same on OS X as the MS Window native game.  There are many places to point fingers - let us not forget Microsoft who has chosen to not port DirectX to the Mac platform.

 

So if anyone is to blame on the inequality of game performance between OS X and MS Windows when that game uses DirectX - then it is Microsoft as they have created an uneven playing field by not releasing DirectX for OS X.

 

I, for one, applaud Wargaming for commissioning a way for us OS X users to enjoy their game and am glad to run it primarily on OS X versus MS Windows.

 

Oh no doubt it is good on Wargaming for getting CodeWeaver to help them put together the WoT Official Mac Wrapper. It's good that it is based on CrossOver for Mac technology instead of just Wine since CrossOver for Mac is a lot more optimized and gives closer to native performance. Right meow? CrossOver for Mac is still much like CrossOver for Linux where you purchase a license valid for 12 month periods at $59.95 USD (I'm not even going to mention the one month and six month support options because the pricing on those are quite steep)... so an Official WoT Mac Wrapper for free is a pretty darn sweet deal. Free optimized dynamic recompiler for a free to play game. :)

 

I just wish that WarGaming would come out and say that they plan on adding support for Vulkan in their new game engine they're working on for World of Tanks. They've stated support for DirectX 11 and 12 is in the works... but so far no Vulkan which is a shame for those running Windows XP, Linux and OSX which could get performance improvements similar to DirectX 12... but maybe I'm also reading too much into it? Maybe they're waiting for Vulkan to come out and then decide if it's worth the effort and of course all the potential bugs and fixes needed in order to get it to run perfectly on all clients to prevent crashing and rendering issues???

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm no anti-Windows kinda person but it would be nice if everyone had the same software capabilities for World of Tanks no matter what operating system they're using. For Vulkan API? Khronos Group has stated any GPU with OpenGL 3.1 or 4.x support will be able to use Vulkan as long as they have their drivers updated to support them... so that's a seriously huge amount of GPUs! So potentially what is that? Every GPU released since something like mid-2009? I'm sure as they detail GPU support more accurately it might end up being much like DirectX 11 capable GPUs much like OpenGL 3.0 required GPUs that had DirectX 10 feature hardware... so on Intel HD 4000 series and up, NVIDIA that's the GTX 400 series and up (by OpenGL standards that means potentially the GTX 200 series... only if NVIDIA puts out a driver for it... which they won't, it's legacy meow) and AMD would be the HD 7000 series and up (technically OpenGL support puts it back to the AMD HD 4000 series but I doubt they'll get a driver since AMD dropped updated software support for them) which is the majority of GPUs out there today.



black_colt #36 Posted Jan 24 2016 - 08:14

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 3641 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View PostThE_MarD, on Jan 24 2016 - 05:39, said:

Heyyo,

 

 

Oh no doubt it is good on Wargaming for getting CodeWeaver to help them put together the WoT Official Mac Wrapper. It's good that it is based on CrossOver for Mac technology instead of just Wine since CrossOver for Mac is a lot more optimized and gives closer to native performance. Right meow? CrossOver for Mac is still much like CrossOver for Linux where you purchase a license valid for 12 month periods at $59.95 USD (I'm not even going to mention the one month and six month support options because the pricing on those are quite steep)... so an Official WoT Mac Wrapper for free is a pretty darn sweet deal. Free optimized dynamic recompiler for a free to play game. :)

 

I just wish that WarGaming would come out and say that they plan on adding support for Vulkan in their new game engine they're working on for World of Tanks. They've stated support for DirectX 11 and 12 is in the works... but so far no Vulkan which is a shame for those running Windows XP, Linux and OSX which could get performance improvements similar to DirectX 12... but maybe I'm also reading too much into it? Maybe they're waiting for Vulkan to come out and then decide if it's worth the effort and of course all the potential bugs and fixes needed in order to get it to run perfectly on all clients to prevent crashing and rendering issues???

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm no anti-Windows kinda person but it would be nice if everyone had the same software capabilities for World of Tanks no matter what operating system they're using. For Vulkan API? Khronos Group has stated any GPU with OpenGL 3.1 or 4.x support will be able to use Vulkan as long as they have their drivers updated to support them... so that's a seriously huge amount of GPUs! So potentially what is that? Every GPU released since something like mid-2009? I'm sure as they detail GPU support more accurately it might end up being much like DirectX 11 capable GPUs much like OpenGL 3.0 required GPUs that had DirectX 10 feature hardware... so on Intel HD 4000 series and up, NVIDIA that's the GTX 400 series and up (by OpenGL standards that means potentially the GTX 200 series... only if NVIDIA puts out a driver for it... which they won't, it's legacy meow) and AMD would be the HD 7000 series and up (technically OpenGL support puts it back to the AMD HD 4000 series but I doubt they'll get a driver since AMD dropped updated software support for them) which is the majority of GPUs out there today.

 

Did you know that CodeWeavers employs Alexandre Julliard [one of the original authors of WINE] and other WINE developers and contributes code to the WineHQ Project under the LGPL?

 

WineHQ is the central repository for WINE development and the latest stable release is 1.8. The latest Development Release is 1.9.

 

CrossOver is CodeWeaver's supported version of WINE which has some proprietary components and application-specific modifications. However some of these components and modifications may not make it back to the WineHQ Project due to license type and other concerns. 

 

CodeWeavers is the main corporate sponsor of WINE which is probably why Wargaming commissioned the WoT Mac Wrapper with CodeWeavers.  I believe that Google has also commissioned work on several projects through CodeWeavers.

 

TransGaming Technologies produces Cedega [formerly known as WineX] and Cider [a wrapper that should allow developers to adapt their games to run on natively on OS X without changes in source code].  Both Cedega and Cider are forks - I believe that they do not contribute any of their work to the WineHQ Project.

 

Quite exciting times for us OS X users if WINE [either through CodeWeavers or TransGaming work] can achieve parity in terms of speed in a MS Windows game on OS X as the native game on MS Windows ...

 

 


Edited by black_colt, Jan 24 2016 - 08:33.


ThE_MarD #37 Posted Jan 24 2016 - 20:27

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15972 battles
  • 723
  • [TBR] TBR
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Heyyo,

 

Yeah I had my names a little backwards before lol, but I do also remember Cedega and Cider but I must say I prefer CrossOver  a little better since they're more in favor of contributing back to the WineHQ project.


I can totally also understand why they wouldn't push all their optimizations back to WineHQ since it would seriously devalue their premium product... but at least a little is still a lot more than none eh?

 

It does achieve performance parity as Windows applications can, but that essentially is only on games that have native OpenGL support in Windows. World of Tanks I'm guessing doesn't and translates DirectX calls to OpenGL so that costs time which then pushes the frame-time variance higher thus resulting in less frames per second... I'm pretty sure that's why even shadows, lighting and post-processing on low gives me quite the performance hit of about 17% on my setup compared to Windows where I only see a perfromance dip on a single GTX 680 (I don't play with SLI on in World of Tanks due to TSSAA not being supported in SLI and WG don't care about it sadly and NVIDIA can't do anything without WG's help).

 

ID Software's game RAGE uses OpenGL on ID Tech 5 Engine and runs flawlessly on Linux and OSX via Wine and offers performance parity because of that native OpenGL support. All you need on Wine apparently is to install XAudio libraries.

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/rage-under-wine-how-it-performs.2756

 

Another prime example of performance parity is Unity engine benchmarks since it has native OpenGL support:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=nvidia-win10-ubuntu15&num=2

 

 

Hmm, tbh I haven't heard much news of WarGaming's upcoming Master of Orion title... so far they've mentioned Windows in the system requirements but no other OSes yet... minus a rumor sparked by steamdb.info showing it having Windows and Linux support yet that doesn't show on the official Steam page for Master of Orion... but I'm sure WG will do the same and partner with CodeWeavers to make an official Mac Wrapper.

 

Also, why isn't WoT on Steam when MoO is? Kinda weird isn't it? :P



black_colt #38 Posted Jan 25 2016 - 19:30

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 3641 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View PostMedessec, on Jan 21 2016 - 08:37, said:

Macintosh computers are the farthest thing from high quality.

 

Almost every aspect of their construction is to exploit value for money on manufacturing, and to wring dry the consumers on replacement/repair if something happens to the device. And this applies to all Apple devices.

 

Macbooks are made with adhesives and uniform chassis construction, they're not easily taken apart and most of the critical hardware such as the RAM and even the SSD/HDD, is soldered onto the motherboard. If you take a device to Apple and tell them something is wrong with it, they usually end up tossing out the whole thing and giving you a whole new one.

 

Apple has no care for you as the consumer. They understand that you know nothing better about computers, and are willing to sacrifice a predominant amount of your paycheck just to have a reliable form of computing. This is classic brand painting and exploitation, and monopolization. From a moral standpoint, I despise Apple for this reason, and will strongly recommend to anyone I know NOT to buy an Apple product. To be fair, a lot of other manufacturers are adopting this model, the laptop industry in general is headed in this direction... and smartphones all follow this model, but Apple relishes completely off of it and doesn't really even innovate or push a unique technology anymore.

 

 

If you want a high quality, sturdy, reliable machine that will work 100% and is easy and simple to repair, buy a Lenovo Thinkpad W520. Tech Centers love Thinkpads, and will usually charge you lower hourly rates to fix them, and it's even possible to fix most problems with them yourself, because they come apart like legos. Parts are a dime a dozen on Ebay/Amazon, and the machines themselves are extremely durable and survive punishment very well, especially if you get a good one. They're also pretty cheap for what you get, I'm seeing W520s for $300-$500 now, and a W520 with Nvidia Quadro 1000M will play World of Tanks on medium to high settings with consistent framerates.

 

You did not mention that the Lenovo ThinkPad W520 is a discontinued product.

 

The currently shipping product is the Lenovo ThinkPad W550 starting at 1,169 USD - http://shop.lenovo.c...w-series/w550s/



Medessec #39 Posted Jan 25 2016 - 20:25

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 26458 battles
  • 3,110
  • [GNET] GNET
  • Member since:
    05-26-2014

View Postblack_colt, on Jan 25 2016 - 18:30, said:

 

You did not mention that the Lenovo ThinkPad W520 is a discontinued product.

 

The currently shipping product is the Lenovo ThinkPad W550 starting at 1,169 USD - http://shop.lenovo.c...w-series/w550s/

 

Some are still on warranty. Warranties are tied to the S/N, not paperwork as well. And even still, there's nothing wrong with having your computer repaired by a third party. And the point I was trying to make is that Thinkpads are laptops you can just leave to themselves if you take care of them- they're nearly indefinitely reliable if you take good care of them.

 

Newer Thinkpads such as the Haswell Thinkpads (T440, T540, W540/541) are all made a bit more similarly to Macbooks- they're still a bit sturdy, but I'd recommend an older Thinkpad more. Newer, doesn't always mean better. And computing is beginning to plateau out anyways, CPU power has stopped gaining raw power and is being made finer and smaller for the sake of cooling and power efficiency. A W520 can keep up with a W540 performance-wise relatively well- and especially considering that you can find a good, solid, working W520 for $400, whereas a refurbished or new W540 is $1500, you get a lot more for your money in the long term anyways.



black_colt #40 Posted Jan 25 2016 - 20:54

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 3641 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View PostMedessec, on Jan 21 2016 - 08:37, said:

Macintosh computers are the farthest thing from high quality.

 

Almost every aspect of their construction is to exploit value for money on manufacturing, and to wring dry the consumers on replacement/repair if something happens to the device. And this applies to all Apple devices.

 

Macbooks are made with adhesives and uniform chassis construction, they're not easily taken apart and most of the critical hardware such as the RAM and even the SSD/HDD, is soldered onto the motherboard. If you take a device to Apple and tell them something is wrong with it, they usually end up tossing out the whole thing and giving you a whole new one.

 

Apple has no care for you as the consumer. They understand that you know nothing better about computers, and are willing to sacrifice a predominant amount of your paycheck just to have a reliable form of computing. This is classic brand painting and exploitation, and monopolization. From a moral standpoint, I despise Apple for this reason, and will strongly recommend to anyone I know NOT to buy an Apple product. To be fair, a lot of other manufacturers are adopting this model, the laptop industry in general is headed in this direction... and smartphones all follow this model, but Apple relishes completely off of it and doesn't really even innovate or push a unique technology anymore.

 

 

If you want a high quality, sturdy, reliable machine that will work 100% and is easy and simple to repair, buy a Lenovo Thinkpad W520. Tech Centers love Thinkpads, and will usually charge you lower hourly rates to fix them, and it's even possible to fix most problems with them yourself, because they come apart like legos. Parts are a dime a dozen on Ebay/Amazon, and the machines themselves are extremely durable and survive punishment very well, especially if you get a good one. They're also pretty cheap for what you get, I'm seeing W520s for $300-$500 now, and a W520 with Nvidia Quadro 1000M will play World of Tanks on medium to high settings with consistent framerates.

 

Macintosh computers are the farthest thing from high quality.

 

Explain exactly why they are not high quality.

 

Almost every aspect of their construction is to exploit value for money on manufacturing, and to wring dry the consumers on replacement/repair if something happens to the device. And this applies to all Apple devices.

 

So AppleCare and the standard one-year warranty [included in purchase] charge users for all repairs?

 

Please provide documentation if they do.

 

Macbooks are made with adhesives and uniform chassis construction, they're not easily taken apart and most of the critical hardware such as the RAM and even the SSD/HDD, is soldered onto the motherboard. If you take a device to Apple and tell them something is wrong with it, they usually end up tossing out the whole thing and giving you a whole new one.

 

The use of non-user serviceable parts [i.e. RAM] is best left to trained individuals. It looks like the battery can be damaged and leak if not serviced correctly. The SSD is removable – it is not soldered to the motherboard.

 

Do you work for Apple? If so, how do you know that Apple tosses out the “whole thing”.

 

Also [I do not know for a fact] perhaps Apple takes those units and tries to figure out what went wrong.

 

Apple has no care for you as the consumer. They understand that you know nothing better about computers, and are willing to sacrifice a predominant amount of your paycheck just to have a reliable form of computing. This is classic brand painting and exploitation, and monopolization. From a moral standpoint, I despise Apple for this reason, and will strongly recommend to anyone I know NOT to buy an Apple product. To be fair, a lot of other manufacturers are adopting this model, the laptop industry in general is headed in this direction... and smartphones all follow this model, but Apple relishes completely off of it and doesn't really even innovate or push a unique technology anymore.

 

Again do you work for Apple? If not, how can you know what they care about.

 

By your own statement not "sacrifice[sic] a predominant amount of your paycheck" is NOT a reliable form of computing.

 

I would need a book to address the “doesn’t really even innovate or push a unique technology anymore.”

 

If you want a high quality, sturdy, reliable machine that will work 100% and is easy and simple to repair, buy a Lenovo Thinkpad W520. Tech Centers love Thinkpads, and will usually charge you lower hourly rates to fix them, and it's even possible to fix most problems with them yourself, because they come apart like legos. Parts are a dime a dozen on Ebay/Amazon, and the machines themselves are extremely durable and survive punishment very well, especially if you get a good one. They're also pretty cheap for what you get, I'm seeing W520s for $300-$500 now, and a W520 with Nvidia Quadro 1000M will play World of Tanks on medium to high settings with consistent framerates.

 

As stated before the Lenovo ThinkPad you reference is not longer available from Lenovo.

 

If the Lenovo ThinkPads work for you – great.

 

Macs would just great for me.

 

Before you put your foot in your mouth about me not knowing non-Apple-branded hardware – I have used IBM workstations and ThinkPads.

 

Also the operating systems I have used and are familiar with are:

 

MS Windows [starting with Windows 95 through and including Windows 10 Pro]

Linux [tried so many – partial to Ubuntu]

Mac OS [starting with System 6 through System 9]

OS X [starting with Public Beta through and including 10.11]

NeXT [starting with NEXTSTEP 3.3 through Rhapsody 5.6 – aka Mac OS X Server 1.2v3]

BeOS on Intel

OS/2 [starting with v2.2 through v4 and Aurora]

Solaris for Intel

OpenIndiana


Edited by black_colt, Jan 25 2016 - 21:00.






Also tagged with Mac, PC, Windows

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users