Steam for Mac - thoughts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh, I see. The 4870 video cards on Apple's store are for the Mac Pros only.

Regardless, the iMacs and MBPs are complete jokes as gaming machines, especially when you start talking about how much you're spending for what you're getting.

My point still stands. Steam on Mac won't make Apple a viable gaming platform, because the machines are still too expensive and the game selection will still be limited.
 
Oh, I see. The 4870 video cards on Apple's store are for the Mac Pros only.

Regardless, the iMacs and MBPs are complete jokes as gaming machines, especially when you start talking about how much you're spending for what you're getting.

My point still stands. Steam on Mac won't make Apple a viable gaming platform, because the machines are still too expensive and the game selection will still be limited.

I don't think anyone is buying them to specifically play games on them... Being able to have Steam and other games is just a bonus.
 
Daggah - Who the hell buys a Mac Pro system with i7 Xeons? Not gamers, that's for sure. Between the very limited Mac Pro target market and the fact that cards made for EFI still don't exist in any real quantities (I really wish PCs would finally switch over so you could use cards for both platforms with no price gouging) means that companies like ATI and EVGA can and will charge crazy amounts for their EFI Mac cards.

EFI for video cards isn't the issue, that's easy to get around, it's the drivers. You are pretty much at apples mercy for drivers.
 
Between the very limited Mac Pro target market and the fact that cards made for EFI still don't exist in any real quantities (I really wish PCs would finally switch over so you could use cards for both platforms with no price gouging) means that companies like ATI and EVGA can and will charge crazy amounts for their EFI Mac cards.

There used to be a lot of discussion about PCs being stuck on BIOS but OEMs keep adding more and more features to BIOS to the point where I'm not sure where the benefit is in EFI, the feature set of high-end motherboards is getting sick. Updatable BIOSes without CPUs, emdeeded Linux and web browsers, etc.

I'm sure there are advatages to EFI but at this point it seems rather moot.
 
Oh, I see. The 4870 video cards on Apple's store are for the Mac Pros only.

Regardless, the iMacs and MBPs are complete jokes as gaming machines, especially when you start talking about how much you're spending for what you're getting.

My point still stands. Steam on Mac won't make Apple a viable gaming platform, because the machines are still too expensive and the game selection will still be limited.

Most people don't buy Mac specifically for gaming machines, I certainly haven't, so that's one thing. Source is a bonus for people that already own and prefer Macs. I know many PC owners that own Mac laptops.

Another thing is the issue of too expensive. Really? iMacs have proven to be better values than all-in-ones from pretty much every other PC manufacturer for years now. That they now start at $1700 and have monitors that cost a minimum $1100 by themselves puts them way over the top these days when everyone else is putting lower res MVAs in theirs that cost roughly as much.

As for MBPs, you're clearly paying more than consumer machines by Dell or HP, but go to the better built business line and the price difference closes significantly, plus you're getting great build quality, great battery life, and excellent horsepower without compromising weight or size.

Finally the issue of power, my two year old MBP can run Source games and Starcraft 2 great. I finally installed Portal on my 27" iMac and guess what, pinned at 60fps with vsync on at 2560x1440, up to 75fps when I turn vsync off. It runs great, which I wasn't expecting given the relatively slow OpenGL drivers and the GPU. It looks awesome on that high-res 27" IPS display. Again, there are going to be some happy Mac users out there, especially those with newer iMacs and MBPs.
 
EFI for video cards isn't the issue, that's easy to get around, it's the drivers. You are pretty much at apples mercy for drivers.

Drivers are an issue, absolutely, but EFI would significantly push down the price of PCI cards usable for Mac Pro owners. Low volume and a high end market means that they can charge a hefty premium on cards with EFI. If PCs moved from BIOS to EFI then there would be a ton of cards on the market being priced much more aggressively. It won't necessarily open up the selection to every card out there but it would make supported cards hundreds of dollars cheaper.
 
It works good on my mac book pro (2009) the only problem i have is steam cloud wont sync which is a pain in that ass kinda defeats the purpose of multi platform gaming
 
It works good on my mac book pro (2009) the only problem i have is steam cloud wont sync which is a pain in that ass kinda defeats the purpose of multi platform gaming

Weird, it works fine with Portal and Torchlight on my end.

Not like it matters much with Torchlight; the game wasn't designed with cross-compatible saves or cloud backups in mind, so Steam Cloud doesn't sync up Torchlight between my Windows and OS X saves. Grr
 
so can I use my windows licensed steam games on Mac? or is it separate license based?
 
so can I use my windows licensed steam games on Mac? or is it separate license based?

You can buy the game once and it will be installable on both platforms for one price if a game is available on both Mac and Windows and has a Steam Play logo next to it. It includes games like Torchlight, PopCap games, TellTale games, all the Valve games, Civilization 4, etc. Its very convenient for people who own both, especially for all those PC users with Mac notebooks.

http://store.steampowered.com/sub/4326/
http://store.steampowered.com/search/?os=mac&category1=998
 
Finally the issue of power, my two year old MBP can run Source games and Starcraft 2 great. I finally installed Portal on my 27" iMac and guess what, pinned at 60fps with vsync on at 2560x1440, up to 75fps when I turn vsync off. It runs great, which I wasn't expecting given the relatively slow OpenGL drivers and the GPU. It looks awesome on that high-res 27" IPS display. Again, there are going to be some happy Mac users out there, especially those with newer iMacs and MBPs.

That's really good to hear. While I would still likely use a 27" iMac as both a computer and monitor, it is nice to know that the 4850 in it can at least handle the games decently at native resolution. Somehow I don't think I would mind no AA given the display's specs if needed be. Perhaps the ATI drivers for Apple are better optimized than Nvidia's?
 
the only reason I downloaded Steam for my iMac was because I thought I would be able to play HL2 again but this time on my Mac.

yes, I know HL2 is old but it's still one of my all time favorite games.
 
That's really good to hear. While I would still likely use a 27" iMac as both a computer and monitor, it is nice to know that the 4850 in it can at least handle the games decently at native resolution. Somehow I don't think I would mind no AA given the display's specs if needed be. Perhaps the ATI drivers for Apple are better optimized than Nvidia's?

Yup, turning off AA helps a great deal for framerate. Hell, I turn off AA on my gaming PC for games like Bad Company 2, makes all the difference even at 1920x1200. And when you're dealing with and iMac and its 2560x1440 LCD that has such high pixel density, having high AA settings isn't as necessary as it is with smaller displays with larger pixels.
 
the only reason I downloaded Steam for my iMac was because I thought I would be able to play HL2 again but this time on my Mac.

yes, I know HL2 is old but it's still one of my all time favorite games.

You're in for a treat, it will look AMAZING on that display.
 
Most people don't buy Mac specifically for gaming machines, I certainly haven't, so that's one thing. Source is a bonus for people that already own and prefer Macs. I know many PC owners that own Mac laptops.

Another thing is the issue of too expensive. Really? iMacs have proven to be better values than all-in-ones from pretty much every other PC manufacturer for years now. That they now start at $1700 and have monitors that cost a minimum $1100 by themselves puts them way over the top these days when everyone else is putting lower res MVAs in theirs that cost roughly as much.

Who the fuck cares about all-in-ones? Seriously.

As for MBPs, you're clearly paying more than consumer machines by Dell or HP, but go to the better built business line and the price difference closes significantly, plus you're getting great build quality, great battery life, and excellent horsepower without compromising weight or size.

Do you even want to talk about performance per dollar in the laptop arena? Go ahead, look at my signature. That G73JH I have? $1600. It will STOMP all over your trendy Macbook Pro. And as far as 17" laptops go...that's a desktop replacement form factor. Who cares about battery life at that size?

Finally the issue of power, my two year old MBP can run Source games and Starcraft 2 great. I finally installed Portal on my 27" iMac and guess what, pinned at 60fps with vsync on at 2560x1440, up to 75fps when I turn vsync off. It runs great, which I wasn't expecting given the relatively slow OpenGL drivers and the GPU. It looks awesome on that high-res 27" IPS display. Again, there are going to be some happy Mac users out there, especially those with newer iMacs and MBPs.

Congratulations. Starcraft 2 is hardly graphically intensive. The Source engine is old. Portal is old. Go ahead, look on the 'net...recent benchmarks show that these games are running much more slowly on Macs booted in OSX than they do in Windows.

Steam on Mac doesn't do anything to change the fact that Macs are vastly inferior to PCs when it comes to gaming.
 
Congratulations. Starcraft 2 is hardly graphically intensive. The Source engine is old. Portal is old. Go ahead, look on the 'net...recent benchmarks show that these games are running much more slowly on Macs booted in OSX than they do in Windows.

Steam on Mac doesn't do anything to change the fact that Macs are vastly inferior to PCs when it comes to gaming.

I'm no Mac fan and while you won't be playing Metro 2033 on a Mac anytime soon the truth of the matter is the the bulk of games out there just need a decent CPU and a basic dedicated GPU to run well. I'm surprised by how many games I can play on C2D 1.6 GHz CPU and HD 4550 dedicated GPU device. Runs all the Source games great and even plenty of newer titiles.

No, it ain't 480 SLI performance but it will do most of the time.
 
He does seem a little upset. It sounds like he's trying to reaffirm his own purchasing decisions.

It's an utterly useless form factor in the eyes high end PC gamers like myself. For people looking to save some space it makes a little sense.
 
It's an utterly useless form factor in the eyes high end PC gamers like myself.
Great, but Daggah's seemingly one-size-fits-all approach ("Who the fuck cares...") said otherwise. Also, it was purely a troll comment as Serpico was just helping out another iMac owner.

edit: actually, his entire post was full of troll.
For people looking to save some space it makes a little sense.
Why? The 27" iMac (keyboard and mouse included) barely makes a dent in terms of surface area of a desk or volume (like, next to the desk, where I could place something else, for example). Just ask my Obsidian 800D where my room went! :p


BUT ANYWAY...

I thought the thread was about Steam for Mac, not Steam on PC vs Steam on Mac. I mean, I could be wrong...
 
Last edited:
Why? The 27" iMac (keyboard and mouse included) barely makes a dent in terms of surface area of a desk or volume (like, next to the desk, where I could place something else, for example). Just ask my Obsidian 800D where my room went! :p

I was saying that all-in-ones are good on space "it makes a little sense" I thought was clear. My towers go on the floor so it they don't take up any room that I'd use for anything else anyway. Multiple monitors, that's what's eating my desk space space these days.

I thought the thread was about Steam for Mac, not Steam on PC vs Steam on Mac. I mean, I could be wrong...

Since Steam is still a PC platform (it would never stand alone as a Mac platform) and since that's about games I don't see how you can keep PC gaming out of any real discussion about this topic other than saying "Steam on the Mac is great!" which isn't much of a discussion. This subject to me is really about the idea of the Mac as a TRUE gaming platform, on par with a Windows PC. For lighter games, which is the bulk of games, sure having Steam and the Valve catalog on the Mac is great for Mac owners. But as a high end hardware PC gamer Steam doesn't really bring anything interesting to the table for me. But if you're a Mac owner that doesn't want to run Windows this will help.
 
Last edited:
I was saying that all-in-ones are good on space "it makes a little sense" I thought was clear. My towers go on the floor so it they don't take up any room that I'd use for anything else anyway. Multiple monitors, that's what's eating my deskspace space these days.
Ooops, sorry. Missed the 'a' in that. But then again, 'a little' vs 'a lot' depends on the user. :p
 
Ooops, sorry. Missed the 'a' in that. But then again, 'a little' vs 'a lot' depends on the user. :p

No problem. I said "a little" simply because for whatever space advantages to all-in-ones there's also downsides. Less flexibility in upgrading and potentially harder and more expensive to repair.
 
blah blah blah

lum.jpg
 
Ok, now that I'm done laughing I'll go line by line

Who the fuck cares about all-in-ones? Seriously.

Well, its all Apple has in the midrange desktop. Again, you say Macs are overpriced, I disagree given the specs of similarly priced AIOs from other PC manufacturers, and the quality of components used (ie - $1100+ worth of LCD in a $1700 iMac).

Comparing an ATX desktop with an all-in-one or a notebook for price/performance seems silly given that they have a different balance in terms of physical design. If one or the other is not for you, great, but it works well for other people.

Do you even want to talk about performance per dollar in the laptop arena? Go ahead, look at my signature. That G73JH I have? $1600. It will STOMP all over your trendy Macbook Pro. And as far as 17" laptops go...that's a desktop replacement form factor. Who cares about battery life at that size?

Again, your priorities are different. I value portability over anything with notebooks. The Macbook Pro is about balancing size, weight, portability, battery life, and cramming as much horsepower and they can into those constraints. The G73JH is twice as thick, almost twice as heavy, and has under two hours of battery life when doing simple web surfing. A Macbook Pro is lighter, has a better keyboard, has the best trackpad on the market with multitouch and gesture recognition which even works in Windows with Boot Camp drivers, and is still plenty powerful (last I checked the 2.66ghz i7 CPU in the MBP is faster than the 1.7ghz i7 in the G73JH, only thing holding the MBP back is the nvidia GPU, shame they didn't go ATI this round), all with over 8 hours of battery life when all is said and done.

Congratulations. Starcraft 2 is hardly graphically intensive. The Source engine is old. Portal is old.

Yup, and they're still fun games that are what I mainly play on my gaming PC. I say that it runs well on the iMac and MBP, you come out with an excuse like "they're old LOL". Who cares, Valve and Blizzard make top games that people will be playing for years, the best on the PC. Gee, what other announced PC games I looking forward to playing, Portal 2 and Diablo 3. Hmm.

Go ahead, look on the 'net...recent benchmarks show that these games are running much more slowly on Macs booted in OSX than they do in Windows.

Yup, fully aware of it. That said, I dual boot on my MBP and the practical performance difference isn't that big. The other thing is that the games are all basically beta software running on old OpenGL drivers. A major OpenGL update is part of the upcoming 10.6.4 patch, and optimizations in the game engine will also improve things. Portal performance got a good boost over the weekend after only being out a few days, and in the past you had games like WoW end up running on par with the Windows after a few patches. Starcraft 2 is in beta with a Mac client that is only two weeks old, so I'm pretty sure it'll improve even further as it gets closer to retail. Not like it matters much, I've played SC2 in both operating systems (A LOT, haha) and the performance difference is nothing to write home about, and it certainly isn't worth a reboot.

Steam on Mac doesn't do anything to change the fact that Macs are vastly inferior to PCs when it comes to gaming.

And I said this before you even started really trolling the thread in earnest:

Most people don't buy Mac specifically for gaming machines, I certainly haven't, so that's one thing. Source is a bonus for people that already own and prefer Macs. I know many PC owners that own Mac laptops.

Like I said, people buy Macs because they prefer OS X (I do), they use it for work (I do), or they like their notebooks over other PC manufacturers (again, I do). I also have a gaming PC so I won't be loading up Steam games on my iMac, but for those that want some games on the side that run really well, or they're PC gamers with a Macbook Pro, they won't be hosed just because they went with a Mac.

Why do you care how other people spend their money anyway? You couldn't pay me to use one of those bigass gaming notebooks that can barely hack 90 minutes when web surfing, have crap keyboards, crap trackpads, or clunky international or airline seat power adapters. MBPs have a premium but given the physical build quality and level of performance at its size, yeah, I'll take it.

Seriously, I don't go into other notebook threads crapping on Alienwares, G73JH, or the crap notebooks you'd get at Best Buy with all of those keyboard/trackpad/etc issues that I mentioned above (and I have beef with almost all of them). I was giving on-topic advice to people that wanted to know how performance was on the same hardware. Given that I use both Windows and OS X and have used Steam from day one with about 160 games in my library, I figured I'd be a good guy to talk about this.

I suggest you either stay out of threads unless you can give constructive advice without derailing the topic, or stay in the front-page forums with the rest of the single-platform fanboys.
 
Last edited:
Great, but Daggah's seemingly one-size-fits-all approach ("Who the fuck cares...") said otherwise. Also, it was purely a troll comment as Serpico was just helping out another iMac owner.

edit: actually, his entire post was full of troll.

It has the most troll per square inch of any post I've seen here in a long time, and that's saying a lot considering the number of tards that post on hardware forums.

Why? The 27" iMac (keyboard and mouse included) barely makes a dent in terms of surface area of a desk or volume (like, next to the desk, where I could place something else, for example). Just ask my Obsidian 800D where my room went! :p

Yup. If I could get the same performance out of an AIO as I do with my desktop (and mobile GPUs are the only thing holding me back as the i7 860 in both my machines are exactly the same), I would do it in a heartbeat. I love how clean and tidy and quiet the whole thing is, so much better as a Final Cut Pro machine than my old Mac tower. Much better resale value too, I got over a grand selling my last iMac, received way less selling my badass and comparably priced gaming PC that I built at the exact same time.

That said, I still love my Corsair 800D, best case ever! If I have to be stuck with a case, I'm happy its that one, plus its so tall that my headphone amplifier rests right on top for super easy access. :)

I thought the thread was about Steam for Mac, not Steam on PC vs Steam on Mac. I mean, I could be wrong...

No, I think you're right. Of course, the single-platform PC zealots will drag everything into an idiotic PC vs Mac debate, its ridiculous. Not everyone wants to build a PC, not everyone likes Windows, not everyone likes notebooks by Dell/HP/Gateway/etc etc, its very simple!

People either need to be helpful and on-topic, bring up good discussion points if you disagree, or STFU. Thread crapping is so annoying.
 
Last edited:
Oh, and one other thing...as far as the 17" MBP goes and the whole battery life/portability argument...ignoring the fact that a 17" laptop is not a portable form factor regardless of who makes it, for the price of a 17" MBP configured to match the G73JH as closely as possible in terms of specs (it will still be slower due to a weaker video card) I could buy a G73JH as well as a second Asus laptop, like the UL30 series or UL80 series, that gets outstanding battery life, so I could have portability PLUS power/performance per dollar and STILL come out cheaper. (In fact, that's what I'm going to do, something like a 11" CULV or netbook that gets outstanding battery life for traveling.)

Enjoy your Apple tax. A fool and his money, etc., etc.
 
Much better resale value too, I got over a grand selling my last iMac, received way less selling my badass and comparably priced gaming PC that I built at the exact same time.

If you look at this statement logically you do realize that you just made a HUGE point in favor of used PCs? Badass gaming PC that cost someone way less than an iMac. Just pointing it out, nothing more.
 
Oh, and one other thing...as far as the 17" MBP goes and the whole battery life/portability argument...ignoring the fact that a 17" laptop is not a portable form factor regardless of who makes it, for the price of a 17" MBP configured to match the G73JH as closely as possible in terms of specs (it will still be slower due to a weaker video card) I could buy a G73JH as well as a second Asus laptop, like the UL30 series or UL80 series, that gets outstanding battery life, so I could have portability PLUS power/performance per dollar and STILL come out cheaper. (In fact, that's what I'm going to do, something like a 11" CULV or netbook that gets outstanding battery life for traveling.)

Enjoy your Apple tax. A fool and his money, etc., etc.

Dude, since when have I ever argued in favor of a 17" notebook? Even a 17" MBP, as light as it is, is IMO too big for a portable. Everyone I know who has owned one has gone smaller with their next notebook. 15" is as big as I will ever go and is all I would argue in favor of, that or a 13".

This argument that you started was about your G73JH vs my own MBP, a 15" model. You argument has no bearing on my reality, so why are you dragging 17" MBPs into the argument? Don't backpedal and change the argument when you were clearly talking about your notebook "stomping" my "trendy" Macbook Pro. I think that a 17" "desktop replacement" notebook with 90 minutes of battery life, about 2" thick, almost 10lbs, with a crummy keyboard and trackpad isn't worth the cash and is completely impractical as a portable. IMO you're better off spending the cash on a real desktop and getting a real notebook with physical portability and good battery life. I also argue the same against the 17" MBP, except that the only thing stupid about it is its size (it handles weight and battery life quite well). Big notebooks, meh, I don't see the point, the only thing is that those 10lb "desktop replacement" monstrosities with no battery life are even more ridiculous.

Difference between you and me is that I don't go into other hardware forums telling people why they wasted money on something that I think is inherently stupid, but then again I don't threadcrap. Unless you're going to war and want a gaming rig, IMO its pointless, just get a real desktop, but hey, other people's money, no big deal.

In any case, smaller, lighter, better battery life, significantly better trackpad and keyboard, excellent OS/hardware integration, etc etc, there are many practical reasons why people may choose to go with a MBP. Its not for everyone but that comes down to personal preference. Choices!

Oh and by the way, the 1.6 GHz i7 720QM in the G73 is indeed faster than the MBP's i7. For one, it's true quad core, and it spins up to 2.8 GHz as needed.

The good old Dual vs Quad debate.

i7 720QM clock speeds with Turbo Mode:

1.60GHz Base
1.73GHz Quad Core Turbo
2.40GHz Dual Core Turbo
2.80GHz Single Core Turbo

i7 620M clock speeds:

2.66GHz Base
3.06GHz Dual Core Turbo
3.33GHz Single Core Turbo

Even in heavily multi-threaded apps it'll be a wash because of the massive clock speed gap, and for single and dual core apps (games!) the clock speed on the 620M wins out by a landslide. As always it depends on your applications, but given the limited number of applications (and especially games) that take advantage of four cores, the much higher clock speed will probably be more beneficial.

Then there's the fact that the 620M has lower TDP than the 720QM, which I suspect is the main reason why Apple went with them. Lower TDP means longer battery life and less heat, both of which are necessary for the MBP given its goals of low battery life and small chassis size. No quad core i7 CPUs exist that don't kill batteries, I suspect that's why your notebook can't even do something simple like browse webpages without completely draining the battery in under two hours.

Here's an interesting comment I found via Google when looking up comparisons: http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...s/450403-i7-620m-vs-720qm-15.html#post6255606

I just returned my Dell Studio 1557 with Core i7-720QM for a replacement Studio 1558 with Core i7-620M. Here's what I found:

The Core i7-720QM sits around 50-60 degC and draws 15W at idle
The Core i7-620M sits around 45-50 degC and draws 6W at idle

The Core i7-720QM maxed out at 88 degC and up to 55W under full load
The Core i7-620M maxed out at 80 degC and up to 28W under full load

All figures from CPUID Hardware Monitor.

I find the Core i7-620M much cooler and a lot more stable than the 720QM, I had a lot of overheating problems with my Studio 1557 720QM.

I also find the 620M faster in day to day use. The majority of programs are still optimised for dual core, even video editing software and filters with only a few video filters being optimised for quad core. I really notice the extra GHz in the dual core i7-620M.

Really the Core i7-620M runs a lot cooler and is faster in most applications than the 720QM.

Wow, guess he's a fanboy!
 
Last edited:
If you look at this statement logically you do realize that you just made a HUGE point in favor of used PCs? Badass gaming PC that cost someone way less than an iMac. Just pointing it out, nothing more.

My gaming PC with monitor actually costs more than my current 27" iMac. You could certainly skimp on components, but buying a TN monitor would never cross my mind.

And don't you think it's a bit odd to compare a home built PC (something we do to save money) with an all-in-one from a builder? Considering that Dell, HP, and Sony couldn't get their AIOs cheaper or with better specs than an iMac, I again think it's a bit weird to call them overpriced for their form factor.

For reference, my 2007 iMac which was $1800 was sold two years later for $1100. My $1800 gaming PC tower from the same time period (kept the monitor which was another $1100) sold for about $500. I dunno, you tell me which one retained it's value better.
 
Last edited:
No. Are you, fanboy?

So let's get this straight, I own both PCs and Macs, give pros and cons for both platforms, am way up front about who this application is for, while at the same time you go trolling forums and taking threads way off topic with horrible arguments, and I'M the fanboy?

Grow up, get a life... :rolleyes:
 
Who the fuck cares about all-in-ones? Seriously.



Do you even want to talk about performance per dollar in the laptop arena? Go ahead, look at my signature. That G73JH I have? $1600. It will STOMP all over your trendy Macbook Pro. And as far as 17" laptops go...that's a desktop replacement form factor. Who cares about battery life at that size?



Congratulations. Starcraft 2 is hardly graphically intensive. The Source engine is old. Portal is old. Go ahead, look on the 'net...recent benchmarks show that these games are running much more slowly on Macs booted in OSX than they do in Windows.

Steam on Mac doesn't do anything to change the fact that Macs are vastly inferior to PCs when it comes to gaming.

It would seem that, obviously, you care a lot about all-in-ones. And Macs. And OS X. Otherwise you probably wouldn't feel the need to come here and troll to feel better about what you bought... :cool:
 
So let's get this straight, I own both PCs and Macs, give pros and cons for both platforms, am way up front about who this application is for, while at the same time you go trolling forums and taking threads way off topic with horrible arguments, and I'M the fanboy?

Grow up, get a life... :rolleyes:

That wasn't even a reply to you. :rolleyes:

When I can take my desktop PC with me on a deployment, then I'll no longer see a need for my 17" desktop replacement G73JH.
 
It would seem that, obviously, you care a lot about all-in-ones. And Macs. And OS X. Otherwise you probably wouldn't feel the need to come here and troll to feel better about what you bought... :cool:

It would seem that Apple fanboys are universally sensitive to criticisms that justifably point out that they wasted their money on their Macs.
 
Oh, and one other thing...as far as the 17" MBP goes and the whole battery life/portability argument...ignoring the fact that a 17" laptop is not a portable form factor regardless of who makes it, for the price of a 17" MBP configured to match the G73JH as closely as possible in terms of specs (it will still be slower due to a weaker video card) I could buy a G73JH as well as a second Asus laptop, like the UL30 series or UL80 series, that gets outstanding battery life, so I could have portability PLUS power/performance per dollar and STILL come out cheaper. (In fact, that's what I'm going to do, something like a 11" CULV or netbook that gets outstanding battery life for traveling.)

Enjoy your Apple tax. A fool and his money, etc., etc.

because the only thing more portable than a G73JH is buying a UL30 too...
 
because the only thing more portable than a G73JH is buying a UL30 too...

Use some common sense. Do you really think I'm going to bring along both an ultraportable and my desktop replacement every time I travel? I bought my desktop replacement because I am DEPLOYED. Having both and having the option of choosing between power and portability is still better than buying an Apple product and supporting the most totalitarian company in the IT industry right now.

And it's STILL cheaper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top