OSNews

"When i want to play a game, same problem the amount of Mac games is very tiny compared to windows."

At the same prise of a gaming PC you can buy a MacBook and a console: you can have a cool and useful portable computer that you can use everywhere you want and a powerful, multimedial, versatile, simple and smart gaming machine than every PC o Mac in the universe, and you havn't to update it every six months to play a brand new game.
When will people understand that PCs or Macs are not for gaming and ALL overpriced for it?

Not all PC games are available for consoles, and among those that are, some simply play better on a PC. Civ IV and Europa Universalis 3 for example aren't available for any console, and if they where they would probably suck (I know Civ IV is now available for the mac, but it took a long time and non of the expansions are available). I'm not even going to touch the whole FPS console vs mouse debate.

You have to remember that not everyone needs to use windows software. Gaming isn't the end all be all of the pc world. Running Windows on a MacPro is just as trivial as running it on a Dell. They have an opinion stating that they would be just as happy running a macpro as they would using an Alienware or a Dell. All you seemed to focus on was the fact that they said that they would be just as happy running a macpro. I'm not one to call people fanboys but I think your comment is stretching it. The macpro is expandable with up to 16GB of Ram and 3TB of disk space as well as the ability to run 4 Video cards if desired. If you install windows using bootcamp then you will have a more than decent gaming rig and if you stick with MacOSX you have a pretty hefty media powerhouse that any professional be it 3d artist, Magazine publisher, or Music producer would be more than happy to run. That would make anyone happy. Though some people like to complain just for the sake of it.

There is more to using a computer than playing (IMHO silly shootem up etc) games.
The % of people (ie gamers) whose majority use of a computer is playing games in very small indeed.
Most PC Users want to do other things with their lives.

I used to play PC Games at every opportunity. I was pretty well addicted to a few games (about 10 years ago) Then, I had a spell in Hospital and I never returned to game playing. Now I see lots of my friends spending hours and hours a week addicted to their favourite game.
I now have other things that are far more important in my life.

Who's holding a gun to your head saying that you have to run MacOS on a Mac Pro? No need to dual-boot. If you're a Microsoft addict, then just run Vista or XP. Windows runs just as... good enough on an Intel Mac as it does on any other PC.

Will it make good use of 8 cores? Probably not quite as well as MacOSX, but honestly, there isn't a desktop platform that scales well past 2 cores. If you want a dual-socket Intel workstation, you're not going to do any better than the Mac Pro, no matter what OS you choose. That's the objective conclusion.

Give me one good reason why i should waste money on an OS i do not like, i have tried OSX for a few month, and i still think it i bad for productivity.
There is no framework like .Net, there is no games (for the 2 times a month i wanna play)...

I prefer to have an open machine, i can configure even with the most exotic hardware i can find.

Many people think Microsoft gives you vendor lockin, but they are the nicest people compared to what Apple does, with their OS, their MP3 Players, their music shop and so on.

When i had to get a new MP3 player, because my iPod fell on the floor and the harddrive died, i did read a lot of test. And in many test the Creatice Zen Vision M, won on functionality, usability, video quality, sound quality. So in EVERY aspect it was better than the ipod, but why did the test put ipod on first spot, because 'the Vision M is not an iPod' It just show how little objectivity the testing business has. They just let the Apple hardware win, no matter how crappy it really is compared to other products on the market, that really sucks !
That is another reason why i will not support a company who locks in their customers that hard as Apple does.

If i buy music in the iTunes shop, i am forced to either recode (makes the sound quality crappy) or buy an iPod. If i buy in mostly other show and get it in WMV i have a huge choice of players capable of playing the music, not only one companies, that is treating the customer with respect, compared to what Apple does.

p.s. When i soon am going to buy a new machine, it is going to be one with the Intel Quad core, with hardware selected by me, and not the tiny amount one campany forces me to use. I want flexibility not lockin.

'but in the real world give us an Apple Mac Pro and we're happy.'

I think that's a pretty objective fact. It may not make you happy, but unless you want to tell them that they can't be happy with a Mac Pro, it's an objective fact.

But since we're arguing, the Mac Pro is an amazing system, especially a souped up one. Two quad-core Xeon 3.0GHz processors, up to 3TB of storage, up to 16GB of RAM, four graphics cards...

Ability to run OS X if you're into video editing, photography and using lots of Mac-specific stuff. Ability to use Windows if you like gaming, .NET programs, and Windows specific stuff. I really don't think this machine is targetted at those who just do a bit of office accounting.

And to say that the Macs don't run Windows well is a complete lie. My one never crashes running Windows, and it runs it a damn sight better than most of my friend's Windows specific laptops. Hardware quality most likely, but I run my MBP in Windows to play games and haven't had a problem.

I usually run OS X because it just feels nicer, but if you don't like it, fair enough, but if you wouldn't be happy with a Mac Pro and assume that nobody would means that you must be extremely picky. What computer do you have that's so amazing? I think objectively, the hardware on a Mac Pro *is* good.