Cheap Macs?
Blitz3D Forums/Blitz3D Programming/Cheap Macs?
| ||
| Well since Im going to be moving to BMAX someday, but not till PC version is out, I'll be wanting to lay my hands on a Cheap Mac system. I searched about and all I can say so far is, ouch. Less perfromance at a higher price? Surely Im doing something wrong, you Mac users are not paying those street prices for that are you? Id like to keep it down around $500, that in the PC world is a 2600XP+, 40GB, 256MB, Nvidia Graphics system complete( no monitor ), so If I can find a Mac of near 2600XP+ performance for about that price, I would be very interested. Back in the 80s I was a certified MAC technician, and installed lots of hard drive kits in the old MAC systems, no easy feat back then. In the 90s I wrote Apple off, and if they were smart they would have folded then, but they are a tenacios lot and seem to have finally managed( Im guising thant to iPod ) be stable again. So, after year of shaking my head at one foolish system release after another, Im looking at the G5 and G6(?), Like the specs, like the looks( but Apple has always been a good looker, it was their limitted OS( tho I admit better than windows) ontop of a dead desire to be incompatable with just about every device in the world and lousy software support I hated. ). The problem is those price tags. It also dosn't help that I can't seem to find any referance to MACs being strong performers in Graphics, I know they used to be the best, but no one seems to be talking about that now. Help, info, anything, please... |
| ||
| No you can't ... the cheapest mac System even with super special student prices is around 800$ ( and we have around 20-30% off on the regular prices ). And the "best graphics" has worn out. The PC hardware and chips have grown since then. St least they got some nice 3D hardware which was their mainproblem for years where PC users had GeForces etc and Mac users played with S3 - SiS level hardware ( aka no hardware ) in graphics stuff. |
| ||
| Apple Macintii are expensive, however... Less performance at a higher price? Not really, as i'm sure you are aware as a previous Mac techie (I was too btw) the Mac is like an AMD compared to Intel, the only difference is AMD advertise their equivellent speed, Apple advertise the real speed. A 2Ghz Mac will easily out perform a 2Ghz PC. They also make good use of dual processor platforms which makes them relatively cheap at the top end of the hardware market, a dual 2Ghz Mac will make a 4Ghz PC look like something the Russians built (they still make Spectrums in Russia - clones, but Spectrums all the same). I can't seem to find any referance to MACs being strong performers in Graphics Back in the 2D days Mac's where indeed faster, 3x infact, courtesy of the way they addressed pixels. Howevers leaps forward in 3D technology have seen a new standard in graphics that doesn't give a darn how pixels are written to the screen so these days Apple Macs have the SAME graphics cards as PC's. I think i'm right in saying the iMac has a 5200FX - exactly what I have here in my PC... The bottom line is Apple are expensive machines, they start in the mid-range where they dont compete favourably, and go to the power-spec machines where they drip all over the competition. I like you am not in the top end of the market, which means we have to either be able to afford a mid range machine and not get a good deal, or cop out with that new iMac thing. As for case design, I think they've lost the plot. The G3 where super cool laptops, the new G4 laptops are dire in their looks - you may aswell stick an IBM badge on it. Then again, IBM and Apple do have more in common than most realise, the processor is made by IBM, and they both hate Microsoft with a passion... |
| ||
| I found this site: http://www.macofalltrades.com/ Now the quastion is will Mac OSX 10.2/3 run on a older G3 and if so will it be fast enough to avoid to much pain? |
| ||
| OSX 10.2+ does work on a G3, however some of the G3's have quite slow processors, it's not so much Blitz that is the problem there, but OSX. It's the Mac equivellent of the jump from Win3.1 to Win95. |
| ||
| Cheap macs... Such things are of myths and legends. |
| ||
| Andy, Yea I'v basicly given up on the whole Mac side, for the time being. Ill just have to wait till the PC version is out. I really can't see any reason to own a Mac on the low and mid end, so It really looks like a poor game market no matter how you slice it. But since MAX will allow easy compilation to all three, I guess we can compile for mac if we want. Although, that is not all that is required. Since support is such a big role for any software, I can see alot of distributors and indies alike avoiding MAC simply because of the lack of knowledge base and the extream cost in hardware to develope that knowledge base. At least with Linux you get the advantage of no additional software and hardware cost, but still need that knowledge base. I see alot of people think they can just recompile to a new platform and gain a new market. But no one seems to be pointing out the support issues associated with those new markets. There are alot of reasons why game houses don't do cross platform, its seldome due to development cost, as most of the cost is in media, these days, and that ports just fine in most cases. The actuall source is C++ and moving from Windows to other platforms is not really that major of a effort. The biggest problem is that the MAC and Linux markets are just too small to cover the cost of the support they will need, especially the Linux side where, just about, everyone has a unique configuration. You know that would be a good topic all to itself. |
| ||
| Buy an eMac for $799. It is similar to my iBook, and I have to say that it works perfectly. I couldn't be happier with it. |
| ||
| you mean beside the missing ram and graphics ram? ( when I remember right it has a 32mb card ... good joke in days where even my 64mb mobility radeon is far too less ) |
| ||
| If you're not opposed to second hand, it's easy to pick up a used G4 tower system comparitively cheap. Macs use basically the same graphics cards as PCs these days, but need a different BIOS on them to work. A Mac version of a PC video card usually inexplicably costs more. |
| ||
| you can't change graphics hardware in iBooks and eMacs :) and towers are not that cheap ( 1800€ in min with a config that is that same as in a 1000€ regular pc ) |
| ||
| you mean beside the missing ram and graphics ram? ( when I remember right it has a 32mb card ... good joke in days where even my 64mb mobility radeon is far too less ) That is one thing that's pretty strange about those eMacs... it'd be twice the speed of my PC (if the doubling up rule is accurate) but have only a quarter of the vram. Totally unbalanced. |
| ||
| From a BlitzMax perspective I wouldn't worry about graphics ram as it's only 2D for the forseeable future, by the time a 3D module appears the hardware WILL have moved on, even if we are only talking 6 months. The one thing that is short on the specs though, with BMax in mind, is RAM. Apple's come a bit light in that department and as programmers we tend to have more apps open at once (although I for one intend to do half my dev work on the PC tools I am used too). I believe I am correct in saying that Apple have used standard RAM since the G3 computers, so at least upgrading them wont be that expensive, 512mb should be enough for programming them with BMax in my opinion. Macs use basically the same graphics cards as PCs these days, but need a different BIOS on them to work Are you absolutely sure? Whilst the statement does make logical sence I thought since they started putting AGP slots in they made them 100% compatable, I may be wrong though, i'm not as much of a Mac-o-phile as I may sound from the above ;). |
| ||
| Video BIOS code has to be executed by the main processor. Since the main processor in Mac is different than the main processor in PC the BIOS will have different codes. Barney |
| ||
| Yeah but Macs are 2-3 generations behind on VRAM level. Only the high price power systems can compete with their 9800XT / GF6800. You have to pay an exorbitant fee to get the others with 128mb which is standard in 3D now ( I have a 64mb mobility card ... I know where I have this theory from as HL2 takes 2-4 mins to load each level part! ) ram is not the prob, you can get them with 1GB without probs, but in 3d VRAM is the prob because it has to hold the textures, not the sys ram ( in good case :) ) I've apple had any systems with a good price - 3d power ratio I would have bought one long ago ... but I don't plan to pay 2000-3000$ for a system with a 9800XT ... thats just far to expensive compared to a comparable windows system. ( and I have a special students price off of around 15-30%! ) |
| ||
| apple mentality = 1x$5000 apple is good business. 10x$500 apples is poor business. thats 9 really unhappy people out of 10 in the world. *disclaimer. a mere exageration to express my point. :P |
| ||
| 867MHZ G4 / 768MB RAM / 60GB HDD / DVD-R SuperDrive/ Giga-Ethernet Just went for 609.99 on ebay. Which is way high. And I looked for componenets like processors, mother boards,.. which is how I got my PC dirt cheap. There was only 1 mother board for G4s on ebay. LOL^2 |
| ||
| as only apple produce boards, no wonder ... the only one sellings boards are the ones that have a broken one and sell out the working parts. |
| ||
| Well, Apple is just not a reasonable option for me at this moment. I can not justify paying way more for way less, witch is what Im looking at in the mid range of systems. Heck even the low end of the PC systems today are superior in performance to the mid range Apples. :( Why on earth these excesive prices? Is it that they are trying to sell to the Elite, "I paid alot therfore its better", crowd or something? I mean its not like a dress, no one is really going to say, "Wow, you got a mac? Your so vogue!" or anything. |
| ||
| Because apple has not the amount of sells as pc systems so the stuff is more expensive ... But they are cheaper than they were used to be ... I found out that I could get a brand new eMac with 512mb ram for 1160CHF so around 700€ ... which is quite low compared with the fact that it has a screen etc. but I will wait until my actual loan ends in a few months ... perhaps G5 emacs are around till then ( iMacs with G5 are around ... would cost me 1850CHF -> 1200€ ) |
| ||
| I can not justify paying way more for way less Dont read too much into the specs, Mac-o-philes will drill you endless that a comparable spec Mac will drip over a PC. They aren't actually lying, it's not so much that Mac's are brilliantly efficient, but that PC's are not efficient - compared to other systems that have come and gone over the years. Heck even the low end of the PC systems today are superior in performance to the mid range Apples. Nah, superior in a few specification details maybe, but not in performance. Why on earth these excesive prices? Because they have a huge wage bill in their design and R&D department, when most PC manufacturers dont even have an R&D department. I mean its not like a dress, no one is really going to say, "Wow, you got a mac? Your so vogue!" or anything. Actually, i'm not trying to pull you to pieces i'm really not, but Mac-o-philes are like that. The Mac is the slinky little black dress of computers, and those who like slinkly little black dresses will always comment on how yours looks, and how small it makes your bum look. It's a bit like the playground arguments of C64 v's Spectrum when I was a kid, only with more money and less common sense. Mac's are good machines and they have a fiercly loyal user base, which is mostly the reason why i'm interested in developing for it. If they wheren't so hell bent on proving that they have shareware too then I there wouldn't be any reason to make shareware for the Mac... |
| ||
| This is outside of your price requirements, but I picked up a little iBook G4 over the weekend for about $1000. Not top of the line, but not too shabby either. Runs like a dream, is small and light, and lets me get my BlitzMax on... I really have to say that I'm impressed with this Mac. The UI is fabulous, the machine seems rock solid stable, and it's plenty fast enough even though it's last years processor. They aren't actually lying, it's not so much that Mac's are brilliantly efficient, but that PC's are not efficient - compared to other systems that have come and gone over the years. Same net effect though - a similiary spec'd Mac will run faster than it's PC counterpart. So what they're saying is essentially true. |
| ||
| you can't change graphics hardware in iBooks and eMacs :) I used to regard this as a negative as well until I realized that I've stopped changing out my PCs video card as well. I generally only change cards when I get a new machine. I think that's what happens when you realize that $400 for 10 more frames per second just isn't money well spent. :) |
| ||
| what are similar specs between totally different processor types? :) the worst chip so far is intel ... sorry, 133mhz FSB?? are we in year 1998 or so? ( even the newest ones don't have more ... 533 is just quad piped 133 which is actually total crap ). mac have real 533mhz till up to 1,25ghz on G5 2,5ghz ... due to that they have no need for 1-3mb 2nd and 3rd level cache because they can access the system in an acceptable speed. perhaps intel will learn that somewhen as well and create some new type of processor basing on the Benias architecture. if they can handle to get some usefull graphics card in the systems ( 32mb 9200 in emac is just to less for that cool cpu, 64mb fx5200 in imac for a g5 as well ) I really tend to buy one, as most of my tools actually are cross plattform ... beside my free license for virtual pc ;) |
| ||
| I know you're just taking a poke, but you know as well as I do that a machines speed comes from far more sources that just it's CPU. :) It's a sum of many things... |
| ||
| As a longtime Mac fan I have to say this: Macs are more expensive to buy. There's no way around it. They are, however, far cheaper to own, unless you enjoy spending time tinkering with your box, removing spyware, etc. etc. In general, Macs last 1.5-2x longer than PCs. (I'm currently playing World of Warcraft on my 2.5y old Mac; it gets the same framerates as my wife's 1.5y old Dell -- both were one notch behind cutting edge when new.) As for best graphics -- you can use pretty much the same video cards in Macs and PCs, assuming you buy a Mac with slots (not an iMac). With an iMac you will probably be far more restricted -- iMacs aren't aimed at folks like us. Unfortunately, that means paying $1700 or so for a headless G5. Or you can get an iBook -- it won't run as fast or have the niftiest video card, but it will run pretty fast, and now you have a laptop unix box to play with. Oddly enough, iBooks are the cheapest new Macs you can buy. |
| ||
| World of warcraft isn't a high spec game. Try the same thing with Doom3. Oh... do they even HAVE doom3 for the mac? No. Didn't think so. Far Cry maybe? No? Well that's been out for nearly a year now. Bleeding edge of games that mac is on eh? I'll bet you paid about double what you did for the dell as well. I've used macs for lengthy periods and I have heard constantly from those indoctrinated into the Cult of Jobs about how much faster the mac hardware is and how much better the operating system is... And I have always had to raise an eyebrow and refrain from smacking them silly. Excepting the early days when the mac had itself a nice niche market with it's graphics capabilities, it's NEVER outperformed the PC on anything but meaningless benchmarks. Real world usability tests and speed tests with anything other than an adobe product (and I can't even guarantee that any more) that was optimized really well for the PPC architecture were less than stellar and quite underwhelming in most cases. I've NEVER found anything about a mac to really enjoy or like. The hardware is pretty. It's got a nice artsy design nowadays. But usability, stability, compatibility, software selection... Forget it. If I get one, I'll cringe and apologize to whomever I buy it from, feel foolish for doing it... And it'll just be so I can sucker mac shareware buyers into grabbing a game I write with bmax, because I will know that they will buy it because they have so few choices when it comes to games. Kanati [edit] hahaha... As I was writing this a friend happened to glance at it and it turns out that even Adobe stated last year that the claims that Apple had in their benchmarks of their 1.4ghz PPC chip being able to outperform (by 30% or so) the fastest Intel chip on the market (at the time just over 3ghz I think) were false. And Adobe even went to far at one point to have a "Works best on PCs" page on their photoshop site. It's pretty bad when even your longtime partner in crime Adobe turns and says "What ARE you smokin' Steve? Your hardware isn't up to snuff!" I'd not have a problem at all if Mac afficianado's would accept the fact that they have good, capable, but behind the curve systems I wouldn't bite back... But when they state they are the BEST... I can barely contain my laughter. |
| ||
| I think i've found a cheap one that you can run BlitzMax on, im not sure though since im not a Mac expert. The specs: G3 Apple Mac It says 350 Mhz but 350Mhz what? I hope he doesnt mean processor, since that sounds really slow. RAM (Upgraded to) 384MB -Pretty good i guess, i have the same on my pc OS - 10.2.8 (it doesn't say if its mac os x just "os 10.2.8") URL for the article(word?) it's in swedish though: http://www.gulatidningen.se/GulLaser.asp?AnoNr=63059 They want 3500 kronor for it wich is about 262 dollars. |
   |