Updated 16 August
Benchmarks for the new iMacs are starting to appear. I'll update this post as I see new reviews that include graphics benchmarks, so check back periodically! (NOTE - due to problems with my ISP's server that's blocking some sites I've not been able to access Inside Mac Games for some weeks now, so I won't be able to include any IMG articles until that's fixed. If it's fixed... UPDATE 13 August - I now have access to IMG! It wasn't my ISP, rather IMG's server was blocking an IP range that included my ISP, but it took a long time to get sorted...)
Macworld's first look at benchmarks.
This one is very interesting. They don't yet have the 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme to test, but Macworld included one game benchmark on the other three new iMacs - Unreal Tournament 2004. These were using the new ATI HD 2400XT/2600PRO graphics with 128MB and 256MB memory respectively, compared to the previous 24" 2.16GHz with GeForce 7300GT 128MB graphics.
NONE of the three new iMacs tested could match the 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo with the GeForce 7300GT - even though the 7300GT was only using 128MB memory compared to the HD 2600's 256MB! And don't forget that the GeForce 7300GT/128MB was the lower graphics option in the previous model iMac - the 24" could be upgraded to the GeForce 7600GT/256MB graphics which were significantly better! So at first glance it seems that the previous model white iMac with either the GeForce 7300GT or 7600GT graphics is a better gaming machine than the new aluminium iMacs! And I don't expect much improvement with the 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme in the new 24" as it uses the same graphics as the standard 24".
Mac gamers, now might be the time to think about getting the previous white iMac 24" with the GeForce 7600GT graphics and 2.33GHz CPU, before stocks run out! There should still be some available on special order from Apple or Apple retailers at this date (12 August), but it won't last long. I wish I could afford one because I'd buy it in a flash now I know more about the new models!
14 August Update
There were a couple of reviews posted for the new iMacs yesterday:
Macworld Review
AppleInsider Review
Both these reviews have reservations about the new ATI graphics and the glossy screen. Although not comprehensive graphics reviews they both voice disappointment at the lack of improvement to the graphics over the previous GeForce 7300GT/7600GT options. Note that the AppleInsider review shows benchmarks for the old G5 iMac against the new aluminium Intel model, so the gains are NOT over the previous Core 2 Duo iMac and are somewhat misleading!
16 August Update
There is now benchmarking comparing the new top end aluminium iMac 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme/Radeon HD 2600 Pro 256MB with the old top end white 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo/GeForce 7600 GT 256MB:
Bare Feats Benchmarks
I've been hanging out to see these top end models compared, and I have to say I'm not surprised to see that the old white iMac absolutely FLOGS the new aluminium iMac in most games! In fact the only way to beat the old top end iMac is with a Mac Pro with Radeon X1900 XT graphics!
So serious Mac gamers who want the best Mac game box but can't afford a Mac Pro, should seriously consider trying to get a white iMac 24" 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo with the GeForce 7600 GT 256MB graphics before stocks at Apple run out. If you already have one, then congratulate yourself for not waiting for the 2007 iMac revision, although you would have payed more ;-)
The old white iMac pricing has now been discounted so there is a big saving over its price before the new model was released, making them around the same price as the roughly equivalent aluminium iMac.
Sunday, 12 August 2007
Saturday, 11 August 2007
New iMacs - Graphics Update
In my previous post I originally suggested that the new 256MB ATI graphics were more powerful than the previous top end iMac's GeForce 7600 GT 256MB graphics. But I've since seen comments that this may not be the case, and that the ATI graphics could actually be less powerful!
Much of this depends on Apple's implementation and whether they've limited the clock speed, but it is a fact that in PC gaming ATI are lagging behind nVidia with Vista drivers so the ATI's DirectX 10 support could well be limited at this time for those who want to dual boot into Vista for gaming (DirectX 10 is Vista-only).
The 2600 Pro is also a poor brother to the 2600 XT which has 512MB memory, but Apple's decision to slim down the iMac case may have made the 2600 XT non-viable due to space and cooling issues. But I would have thought that if Apple are throwing a 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme at the iMac, then couldn't they at least have given it high end graphics as well, even just as an option..?
Is this yet another case of 'form over function' with Apple..? And even though we know Apple don't take gaming seriously, when are they going acknowledge that there are some serious Mac gamers out here and give us decent graphics in the consumer model Macs..?
Much of this depends on Apple's implementation and whether they've limited the clock speed, but it is a fact that in PC gaming ATI are lagging behind nVidia with Vista drivers so the ATI's DirectX 10 support could well be limited at this time for those who want to dual boot into Vista for gaming (DirectX 10 is Vista-only).
The 2600 Pro is also a poor brother to the 2600 XT which has 512MB memory, but Apple's decision to slim down the iMac case may have made the 2600 XT non-viable due to space and cooling issues. But I would have thought that if Apple are throwing a 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme at the iMac, then couldn't they at least have given it high end graphics as well, even just as an option..?
Is this yet another case of 'form over function' with Apple..? And even though we know Apple don't take gaming seriously, when are they going acknowledge that there are some serious Mac gamers out here and give us decent graphics in the consumer model Macs..?
Wednesday, 8 August 2007
New iMacs - 7 August 2007
As expected, Apple has announced the new iMac range. They are now cased in aluminium (also as expected), offset with a black screen surround and back. I have to say they look rather nice! But I'm not so sure about the keyboard which is a very thin laptop style with low flat keys (which was leaked some days ago so has also been expected). I've yet to check out the new glossy screen - similar products I've seen have looked all right at a casual glance, but it's a very personal preference that won't suit everyone. The 17" model has been dropped (widely predicted) to concentrate on the 20" and 24" models. One thing that didn't transpire was a model with a larger screen than the 24" but you can't have everything.
I was a little surprised to see the new CPUs - the top 24" model now has a 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme! The other three models keep the Core 2 Duo now at 2.0GHz and 2.4GHz. All models now have dedicated ATI Radeon graphics, and all but the base model now have as standard the Radeon HD 2600 Pro with 256MB memory (512MB would have been nice though...) The top 24" now comes standard with 2GB RAM, with 1GB for the other three models. And the top 24" now has a 500GB hard drive standard, with options for up to 1TB! The full range now comes with an 8x dual layer Superdrive.
As a comparison, the previous model top end 24" upgraded to the faster processor, 2GB RAM, 500GB hard drive, and 256MB graphics memory, is broadly the same specs as the now standard top end 24", except the CPU has been significantly boosted with the new model, going from the Core 2 Duo to the much faster Core 2 Extreme. And all that comes with a price drop of about $800 Australian for the significantly more powerful machine!
I suspect some of the price drop is due to the lower manufacturing costs of LCD screens these days, but the new top end 24" is priced around 20% lower than its predecessor, which makes it a very attractive option!
It shouldn't be too long before the new models start getting tested against the old, and I'd guess that they will compare very favourably.
I was a little surprised to see the new CPUs - the top 24" model now has a 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme! The other three models keep the Core 2 Duo now at 2.0GHz and 2.4GHz. All models now have dedicated ATI Radeon graphics, and all but the base model now have as standard the Radeon HD 2600 Pro with 256MB memory (512MB would have been nice though...) The top 24" now comes standard with 2GB RAM, with 1GB for the other three models. And the top 24" now has a 500GB hard drive standard, with options for up to 1TB! The full range now comes with an 8x dual layer Superdrive.
As a comparison, the previous model top end 24" upgraded to the faster processor, 2GB RAM, 500GB hard drive, and 256MB graphics memory, is broadly the same specs as the now standard top end 24", except the CPU has been significantly boosted with the new model, going from the Core 2 Duo to the much faster Core 2 Extreme. And all that comes with a price drop of about $800 Australian for the significantly more powerful machine!
I suspect some of the price drop is due to the lower manufacturing costs of LCD screens these days, but the new top end 24" is priced around 20% lower than its predecessor, which makes it a very attractive option!
It shouldn't be too long before the new models start getting tested against the old, and I'd guess that they will compare very favourably.
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
The Future of Mac Gaming..?
Is this the future of Mac Gaming?
I don't think I need to say anything more about this, except to point you back to this post from March...
I don't think I need to say anything more about this, except to point you back to this post from March...
Tuesday, 3 July 2007
'Is MacRaider still relevant?' Poll result!
I let this poll run for 5 weeks until I finished my TR Anniversary walkthroughs. Apart from the poll comments I had a few emails as well, and I want to thank everyone who responded!
The total responses weren't overwhelming at 11, but with human nature being what it is there is likely to be a silent majority out there who feel the same way. The most surprising things to me were that there was not a single negative comment, and there are several people who would like me to continue even though they may not be playing on a Mac in the future! And I'm particularly pleased that there are some who prefer my writing style - I always write as though I'm talking to the reader and that's not something I've cultivated, it's just the way I am. In fact I doubt I could write any other way...
So I've decided that I'll continue supporting the site for some time to come! There may not be a lot of news between games, and there's no guarantee that the next TR will be released on a platform I can use (there won't be another PlayStation 2 TR after Anniversary so if I jump the wrong way I'll be left out in the cold) but if I can find a way to continue my coverage I'll be doing it. And you'll be pleased to know that my email support will also continue!
Thanks again everyone, and keep on MacRaiding!
The total responses weren't overwhelming at 11, but with human nature being what it is there is likely to be a silent majority out there who feel the same way. The most surprising things to me were that there was not a single negative comment, and there are several people who would like me to continue even though they may not be playing on a Mac in the future! And I'm particularly pleased that there are some who prefer my writing style - I always write as though I'm talking to the reader and that's not something I've cultivated, it's just the way I am. In fact I doubt I could write any other way...
So I've decided that I'll continue supporting the site for some time to come! There may not be a lot of news between games, and there's no guarantee that the next TR will be released on a platform I can use (there won't be another PlayStation 2 TR after Anniversary so if I jump the wrong way I'll be left out in the cold) but if I can find a way to continue my coverage I'll be doing it. And you'll be pleased to know that my email support will also continue!
Thanks again everyone, and keep on MacRaiding!
Sunday, 27 May 2007
Poll - is MacRaider still relevant?
Update 3 July: This poll is now closed and I've made my decision - go to the Poll result post for more!
The last Mac Tomb Raider, Angel of Darkness, was released nearly 3.5 years ago in December 2003. With the release of Anniversary in a week or so there will be two new Tomb Raiders since the last Mac TR game hit the shelves, with no word from Aspyr, or anyone else, that there will be a future TR release on Mac. This may or may not be Aspyr's decision - it could be a decision by Eidos to deny a Mac license, or they may be asking too much for licensing. But considering that TR Legend is available for almost every conceivable platform except Mac and Linux, it seems unlikely that the decision is purely Eidos'...
MacRaider is, by definition, a Mac Tomb Raider site, so the absence of any new Mac TR in 3.5 years seems to make MacRaider largely irrelevant, especially if there won't ever be another TR on the Mac. So I am now left with a decision - do I continue publishing Tomb Raider information and walks from other platform versions, or do I tidy up MacRaider and leave it as an online archive for the few Mac gamers who still play the old Mac Tomb Raider games? And do you still want me to provide email support for the Mac Tomb Raider games? (I get very few emails these days for Mac help...)
As for my future gaming, it's likely that I'll be moving more and more to consoles and away from the Mac. Mac gaming seems to be getting more marginalised every year, largely as a result of Apple not supporting serious gaming - OpenGL isn't a patch on DirectX and Apple are unlikely to do anything about it. I've been gaming on PlayStation for some years now for games that never came to Mac, and sometime in the future I intend to include an Xbox 360 in my lineup. The Mac will still be my computer of choice for general use, but not an Intel Mac - I'm very happy with my MDD Power Mac for everything other than games and I can see no reason to spend a small fortune on a game-ready MacIntel when consoles are far cheaper and have a far larger game catalogue to choose from. I've been a Mac Advocate for a long time now and I still am, but no longer for gaming...
The last Mac Tomb Raider, Angel of Darkness, was released nearly 3.5 years ago in December 2003. With the release of Anniversary in a week or so there will be two new Tomb Raiders since the last Mac TR game hit the shelves, with no word from Aspyr, or anyone else, that there will be a future TR release on Mac. This may or may not be Aspyr's decision - it could be a decision by Eidos to deny a Mac license, or they may be asking too much for licensing. But considering that TR Legend is available for almost every conceivable platform except Mac and Linux, it seems unlikely that the decision is purely Eidos'...
MacRaider is, by definition, a Mac Tomb Raider site, so the absence of any new Mac TR in 3.5 years seems to make MacRaider largely irrelevant, especially if there won't ever be another TR on the Mac. So I am now left with a decision - do I continue publishing Tomb Raider information and walks from other platform versions, or do I tidy up MacRaider and leave it as an online archive for the few Mac gamers who still play the old Mac Tomb Raider games? And do you still want me to provide email support for the Mac Tomb Raider games? (I get very few emails these days for Mac help...)
As for my future gaming, it's likely that I'll be moving more and more to consoles and away from the Mac. Mac gaming seems to be getting more marginalised every year, largely as a result of Apple not supporting serious gaming - OpenGL isn't a patch on DirectX and Apple are unlikely to do anything about it. I've been gaming on PlayStation for some years now for games that never came to Mac, and sometime in the future I intend to include an Xbox 360 in my lineup. The Mac will still be my computer of choice for general use, but not an Intel Mac - I'm very happy with my MDD Power Mac for everything other than games and I can see no reason to spend a small fortune on a game-ready MacIntel when consoles are far cheaper and have a far larger game catalogue to choose from. I've been a Mac Advocate for a long time now and I still am, but no longer for gaming...
Thursday, 24 May 2007
Why don't I use Linux?
Increasingly these days on the web this question is being asked, with a wide variety of suggestions as to why more people haven't switched to Linux. So here are my reasons.
As I run the Mac OS I'm not subject to all the problems with Windows, and I don't just mean malware. Yes, I don't currently have a problem with malware but I acknowledge that Mac OS X isn't totally safe, it's just not targeted by malware writers - it is much more secure than Windows but it is still vulnerable. But the best thing about the Mac OS is that we don't have all the Digital Rights Management restrictions built into Windows - we can reinstall OS X whenever, wherever, and how ever many times we like without breaching any useage restrictions. Try doing that with Vista... One exception to this is a user's iTunes library where they can run foul of DRM restrictions with their existing iTunes library if they need to reinstall the system or change computers. I get around this by not using the iTunes store at all - in fact I still run iTunes 4.2 which suits me fine and is probably the best iTunes of all for just playing music! So the main reason to switch - usability - just doesn't apply to me.
Now, the real reason.
I do like the idea of Linux, and some time ago I decided to at least evaluate it on my MDD G4 as Linux has supposedly evolved into a good solution for people like me. So I did my research, and finally settled with Ubuntu, which at the time was at version 6.06 and was the most popular general Linux release. I read all the release notes on the site prior to downloading, then downloaded the required ISOs and burnt the discs exactly as per the instructions. But I was unable to even begin the install to any disk, let alone the external Firewire drive I wanted it on. Why? Well I'm not a computer newbie so it wasn't a lack of familiarity with computer concepts. I went to the Ubuntu support site and after a lot of burrowing around I found the answer, by accident - Ubuntu 6 was incompatible with my dual G4 Power Mac! Why wasn't this stated in the release notes? Well I have no idea why a known problem wasn't clearly stated up front, and this leaves me wary of any future Ubuntu release - how can I know that any Ubuntu release is compatible with my Mac before downloading it and trying it..?
OS X 1, Linux 0.
Not totally discouraged, I did more research and settled this time on Yellow Dog Linux, which is considered the best PowerPC Mac Linux release. I downloaded all 4 ISOs, burnt all 4 discs, and this time I was able to commence an install on my MDD Power Mac. Commence being the operative word... I wanted to install YDL on my Firewire drive, and leave the Mac's firmware untouched as for evaluation purposes I wanted to select YDL to boot rather than have it boot automatically. Now this wasn't a big problem as although YDL does update the firmware it can be reset within OS X using the Startup Disk panel. But then a second problem arose - YDL couldn't install on my Firewire drive due to a known formatting issue that is seen in some circumstances. I could get around this by completely reformatting the Firewire drive but then I'd lose all the stuff I keep on it. I could back it up, but why should I have to do this at all? I declined to proceed...
OS X 2, Linux 0.
Then there are the known Linux issues of hardware compatibility for things like graphics cards, printers etc. Some of these require downloading even more installers, others require editing system files! Despite being an experienced computer user I'm not about to start learning how to modify Unix system files just to get the thing running - as a long term Mac user I'm used to having the Mac OS 'just work' through every update I've ever done (well, 99% of the time, and the other 1% just requires a minor updater download). I can only recall one instance in 15+ years where I needed to mess with a Mac system file, and that was renaming an OS 8.5 extension (Sound Manager) to force it to load earlier in the startup process to fix an audio problem, a process that had no risks at all and could be done safely by almost anyone with little instruction.
OS X 3, Linux 0.
I currently run OS X Panther, which is somewhat out of date now so limits what I can do, but is rock solid and does everything I really need it to at this time. I intend to skip Tiger and go directly to Leopard sometime after it's released, but I'll wait until it gets updated to maybe .3 or .4 so the major bugs are sorted. When I do install Leopard it will be on a separate internal drive (which I've already installed for other reasons), and I won't be running it as my primary system as I have a continuing need for the solid Classic support I currently have in Panther, which will probably be lost with Leopard (if it even supports Classic at all...)
It comes down to user-friendliness, pure and simple. The Mac OS 'just works', but Linux requires a lot of messing around to reach the same point, and I'd still be left with some software that couldn't be replaced so I'd still need the Mac OS. End of story...
As I run the Mac OS I'm not subject to all the problems with Windows, and I don't just mean malware. Yes, I don't currently have a problem with malware but I acknowledge that Mac OS X isn't totally safe, it's just not targeted by malware writers - it is much more secure than Windows but it is still vulnerable. But the best thing about the Mac OS is that we don't have all the Digital Rights Management restrictions built into Windows - we can reinstall OS X whenever, wherever, and how ever many times we like without breaching any useage restrictions. Try doing that with Vista... One exception to this is a user's iTunes library where they can run foul of DRM restrictions with their existing iTunes library if they need to reinstall the system or change computers. I get around this by not using the iTunes store at all - in fact I still run iTunes 4.2 which suits me fine and is probably the best iTunes of all for just playing music! So the main reason to switch - usability - just doesn't apply to me.
Now, the real reason.
I do like the idea of Linux, and some time ago I decided to at least evaluate it on my MDD G4 as Linux has supposedly evolved into a good solution for people like me. So I did my research, and finally settled with Ubuntu, which at the time was at version 6.06 and was the most popular general Linux release. I read all the release notes on the site prior to downloading, then downloaded the required ISOs and burnt the discs exactly as per the instructions. But I was unable to even begin the install to any disk, let alone the external Firewire drive I wanted it on. Why? Well I'm not a computer newbie so it wasn't a lack of familiarity with computer concepts. I went to the Ubuntu support site and after a lot of burrowing around I found the answer, by accident - Ubuntu 6 was incompatible with my dual G4 Power Mac! Why wasn't this stated in the release notes? Well I have no idea why a known problem wasn't clearly stated up front, and this leaves me wary of any future Ubuntu release - how can I know that any Ubuntu release is compatible with my Mac before downloading it and trying it..?
OS X 1, Linux 0.
Not totally discouraged, I did more research and settled this time on Yellow Dog Linux, which is considered the best PowerPC Mac Linux release. I downloaded all 4 ISOs, burnt all 4 discs, and this time I was able to commence an install on my MDD Power Mac. Commence being the operative word... I wanted to install YDL on my Firewire drive, and leave the Mac's firmware untouched as for evaluation purposes I wanted to select YDL to boot rather than have it boot automatically. Now this wasn't a big problem as although YDL does update the firmware it can be reset within OS X using the Startup Disk panel. But then a second problem arose - YDL couldn't install on my Firewire drive due to a known formatting issue that is seen in some circumstances. I could get around this by completely reformatting the Firewire drive but then I'd lose all the stuff I keep on it. I could back it up, but why should I have to do this at all? I declined to proceed...
OS X 2, Linux 0.
Then there are the known Linux issues of hardware compatibility for things like graphics cards, printers etc. Some of these require downloading even more installers, others require editing system files! Despite being an experienced computer user I'm not about to start learning how to modify Unix system files just to get the thing running - as a long term Mac user I'm used to having the Mac OS 'just work' through every update I've ever done (well, 99% of the time, and the other 1% just requires a minor updater download). I can only recall one instance in 15+ years where I needed to mess with a Mac system file, and that was renaming an OS 8.5 extension (Sound Manager) to force it to load earlier in the startup process to fix an audio problem, a process that had no risks at all and could be done safely by almost anyone with little instruction.
OS X 3, Linux 0.
I currently run OS X Panther, which is somewhat out of date now so limits what I can do, but is rock solid and does everything I really need it to at this time. I intend to skip Tiger and go directly to Leopard sometime after it's released, but I'll wait until it gets updated to maybe .3 or .4 so the major bugs are sorted. When I do install Leopard it will be on a separate internal drive (which I've already installed for other reasons), and I won't be running it as my primary system as I have a continuing need for the solid Classic support I currently have in Panther, which will probably be lost with Leopard (if it even supports Classic at all...)
It comes down to user-friendliness, pure and simple. The Mac OS 'just works', but Linux requires a lot of messing around to reach the same point, and I'd still be left with some software that couldn't be replaced so I'd still need the Mac OS. End of story...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
