Slashdot Mirror
Oculus Founder: Rift Will Come To Mac If Apple "Ever Releases a Good Computer" (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: It's been almost a year now since Oculus announced that the consumer version of the Rift virtual-reality headset would only support Windows PCs at launch -- a turnaround from development kits that worked fine on Mac and Linux boxes. Now, according to Oculus co-founder Palmer Luckey, it "is up to Apple" to change that state of affairs. Specifically, "if they ever release a good computer, we will do it," he told Shacknews recently. Basically, Luckey continued, even the highest-end Mac you can buy would not provide an enjoyable experience on the final Rift hardware, which is significantly more powerful than early development kits. "It just boils down to the fact that Apple doesn't prioritize high-end GPUs," he said. "You can buy a $6,000 Mac Pro with the top-of-the-line AMD FirePro D700, and it still doesn't match our recommended specs."
You can build a sub-$1000 PC that will work with the Rift. Some people have posted builds much lower. Price isn't the problem. High-end Macs just don't have gaming GPUs.
Unfortunately, the same can be said about general boneheaded behavior of top company officers.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
It's pretty true. The Mac Pro used to be a high-end 2CPU workstation comparable with offerings from any business PC manufacturer. Now it's a little tin can with 1 CPU. The issue with Apple used to be that you would pay significantly more for the same performance. Now the issue is that no amount of money can buy that performance even if you have a blank check, other than nonstandard solutions like eGPUs.
Don't kid yourself, they are focused on selling overpriced hardware to maximise profits. No battery problems with a desktop mate. The article says it perfectly in that Macs are just not good enough.
If a high end Mac won't support it. You will need a higher end PC which will be beyond most people's budgets.
Not even slightly. Because iMacs have basically shit graphics and aren't upgradeable due to being all in one.
And the mac pros have specialist workstation graphics cards certified for CAD etc; which are extremely expensive, and very good for CAD, but not so great for games; and they also ship with Xeons etc which push the price way up.
Meanwhile a basic PC tower with a decent i5/i7 and a highend video card can be had for $1500 or less.
The most expensive Mac has a GPU that is useless for high-end gaming. Intel integrated graphics are not even close to being OK for this purpose, and an expensive AMD card that is specialized for CAD and graphic design simply isn't capable of working for VR. There's no reason for Oculus or HTC/Valve to invest a single second of time trying to support those systems.
Processing power isn't the bottle neck. I have a system built on a 2600K processor, which is fairly old, but it's clocked to over 3.5 ghz, and it's not a problem. My system still crushes Valves VR capability test rather handily, because I have a GTX980 as the graphics card.
A gaming box can be built that would be adequate for VR for around $1000. There isn't a single Mac that is capable, no matter how much money you throw at Apple. Even if you could throw, say a Geforce GTX980ti in one, the drivers don't exist. Apple maintains complete driver control on their platform, and even when they DID provide options that included then-equivalent hardware, the performance was abysmal.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
I can hear them typing away furiously on their Macbooks from here.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Merriam-Webster begs to differ:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
They have builds to meet the recommended spec on the specs page... It currently takes $1100. You can reach the minimum with $800 just barely.
That's a pretty damn high end machine.
But yes, ultimately the issue is not that apple didn't "release a good computer", it's that apple's computers aren't targeted at gaming, and hence don't have gaming GPUs in them.
High end Macs come with Work Station graphics cards. They're not meant for rendering games in realtime, they're meant for running Maya/Photoshop (think editing a 12k image), Autocad etc, etc. They can run games, just not very well.
The rest of Apple's range ships with Intel Graphics, which they swapped back to as soon as they were good enough to do 4k+ light 3D (think Bioshock Infinite levels).
Apple can sell you a $2000 laptop with $400 worth of hardware. There's no way they're going to bite into that profit margin for the sake of a few early adopters and drop $300 worth of graphics in there. They only do that on the workstation because the computers would be basically worthless otherwise, and there they crank the price up to 6k to compensate...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Posting AC, just because. I bought a 2015 MBP... guess what, when doing anything serious with it, it overheats, and sometimes it might throttle back, othertimes, it just thermal-halts, or gives the pinwheel of death. I've had to grab an app someone wrote on GitHub to scale back my stuff when the thermal pressure of the Mac went above a certain level. Memory pressure, same... Run too much stuff, and Macs don't swap gracefully... they thrash, pretty much requiring a force-off with the power button. Genius support can't really do much because all fans are within parameters, and thermal shutdowns leave zero in the way of logs. Yes, I've done OS reloads, even booting the box from a Linux USB flash drive, typing in "blkdiscard -v /dev/sda" to ensure that the flash drive is absolutely clean, then reloading from that.
The ironic thing... my old MBP from ages ago, which is the same size... just keeps on ticking. It gets a new OS every year, but I've never had it just thermal suicide.
Now, lets look at Apple's other offerings.
The Mac Mini. What a joke. It was a four core machine until the last refresh two years ago... now it sports two cores + HT, slower, and less upgradable. Desperately needs some love.
The Mac Pro. The old Mac Pros used to have the ability to use RAID. This one? One SSD, and that's it? For a computer that will cost you $4000 for something with reasonable specs, this is just unacceptable. It also is a bitch to rack, requiring a third party kit.
The 2015 MacBook. WTF? These specs are good for a 2010 laptop, but with one expansion slot (which is used for power), and nothing else, this may be a great thing for a college students to write papers on, but this isn't a serious machine.
The iMac. It drives one screen OK... but most people run two or three heads these days, if only to play a game on one screen or VM while doing something on the other. Try that with an iMac, and you have a nice slideshow. Apple seems to use the absolute minimum it takes to drive a machine, GPU-wise.
Don't forget repairability. There isn't any.
Yes, Apple makes their money on the iPhone, but they really should not neglect their other product lines, and from what I've been seeing the past few years, the Mac offerings have been becoming more of toys at best, expensive paperweights at worst.
Maybe Apple just should get off their ass and make the old school Mac Pros, or just make toys and spin off the Mac line to another company that can focus on making a quality product.
Yeah... no.
See for the work I do (service Scientific instruments) I use a Mac, because I am more productive on the Mac , and when I am charging customers $200/hr they don't want to pay for me to piss about with a high end gaming rig.
The price difference is irrelevant, make up a couple of hours in increased productivity and that difference is gone. And that would be just in the first month, after 4+ years the Mac turns out to be profitable as I have probably saved 40-60 hours and more (i.e. about $8000-$12,000 plus of billable hours)
Your needs are not mine, you may be more productive in Windows/Linux, so go for it, use what best for you. It is a tool and I choose the best ones that work well and "feel right", be it a computer, oscilloscope, logic analyser, socket set or screw driver.
So, if Apple does not make what you want, who cares, buy what you need elsewhere, they are under no obligation to build anything they don't want to.
While I got a chuckle out of the burn against Apple, it does just seem in general like they aren't working on cross-platform support at all anymore.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
I see them pretty commonly in tech. Some people go all-out and run Linux or a BSD on their laptop, but for those who don't want to deal with the hardware-support issues, OSX is often the next choice.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You guys are such loosers.
the base spec at academic is more in line with the lack of power. recently we bought the 5k 27" imacs at a base price of £1245 I think. overpriced but compared tro the arse fucking that dell indulges in with its 'partners', not shocking.
It might be overpriced if you're only looking at the CPU, GPU, and RAM. But don't forget that the 27" iMac includes a 5K panel that supports wide gamut and is by all accounts excellent in calibration and color reproduction. A Dell 27" 5K monitor by itself is over $1,500 - compared to that, getting an equivalent monitor plus a whole computer for about $1770 US (based on the British price you listed above) seems like a bargain.
And if the university is full of creative types running the Adobe apps, then they probably really do need quality monitors.
Considering how much Microsoft is hell-bent on alienating their users with Win10, and considering what you've just described, where will the desktop computer market go from here?
Windows... you may think the issues are huge, but outside a handful of uber pissed of people, I find that most people either don't care, or aren't even aware of it.
I'm not saying it doesn't matter, I'm simply saying that it is number 417 on their give a crap list and it just doesn't register on their radar.
False. Eons use exactly the same architecture as desktop CPUs, they just have additional support for (originally SMP), and more recently, NUMA. A 12 core Xeon is directly equivalent to a modern 4 core i7, just with 3 times as many cores.
After years, decades perhaps, of people calling Apple computers "toys" we have someone complaining that Apple no longer makes a "toy" computer.
I remember in college someone telling me that while Macs were good for graphics they sucked for doing "real" math. This was at a time before 3D accelerator cards existed. I pointed out to him that graphics to a computer was nothing more than a series of mathematical computations, so I asked him how exactly a computer capable of such a feat of performing such complex computations was incapable of performing "real" math? He was struck silent.
Now I have someone telling me that while high end Macs might be good number crunchers they suck at graphics. Okay then, but what makes the Windows computers so good at graphics? It's not the OS. It's not the processor. The difference is the GPU, which is available as an add-on.
It took me a matter of minutes to find that people have been adding GPUs to Macs on a Thunderbolt port for years. I happened to click on a link that showed me that this same feat has been done on Windows computers as well. Running Windows on an Apple is a trivial feat so therefore I can only assume that Apple computers are fully capable of functioning with Oculus Rift hardware to those willing to go through the minor inconvenience of installing Windows on their computer and purchasing what is likely to be a video card that they'd have to buy anyway if they bought a computer that had Windows installed out of the box.
Sounds to me that the guy doesn't want to bother servicing Apple owners out of laziness more than anything.
Perhaps I missed something important here. I'm not much of a gamer and I don't follow the changes in hardware like I used to, my current job doesn't require me to recommend hardware purchases like previous jobs did.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Both your comment and his are rough! I mean rough! True, but rough.
Then again, let's be clear... In my opinion:
They make fine hardware. I'm just not impressed with it. It's definitely good for what it is. I'm pretty sure that they could do better, especially at their prices and volume. By better, I mean higher specs with regards to speed and storage capacity. The OS is fairly capable, I've no complaints there and I've used it enough to know that I'm pretty sure that they're more than just appliances. The thing is, the vast majority of people use them like appliances and that's okay too. It's what they want, it's what they want to do, and it's probably good that they have the freedom to decide that sort of thing. Having OS X is good in that it gives people options.
Due to extenuating circumstances, I've purchased a whole lot of Apple hardware. I'm not even a fan of Apple! However, I've probably purchased more Apple devices than anyone here unless they're in charge of provisioning a large company and doing the purchase orders for them. But, where it comes to spending my own money on Apple devices, I'm pretty sure I've exceeded the number purchased by anyone in this entire thread - maybe even combined.
But...
Here's the thing? I go through a lot of hardware. I have my reasons! It's not an addiction! Err... Anyhow, I go through a lot of hardware and I'm really not able to recall the last time I was well and truly impressed. It hasn't been for a while. I think the last time I was impressed was when I jumped to a quad-core system that was 64 bit and had 8 GB of RAM. Other than that, the jump to an SSD was a meaningful moment.
Other than that? I can't really think of anything recent that has impressed me. I don't notice much of a difference between this year and last year's computers. I don't even notice much of a difference between this year's and the ones from four years ago. I don't even notice much of a difference after I get past 16 GB of RAM. I really don't? I'm not a gamer so that's not something I'd notice. I don't even bother buying bleeding edge anymore. At least not most of the time. Frankly, for what I do, I've got ample hardware that is good enough. I've not had anything impress me for quite a while now.
Maybe that's part of the problem? I bought a really, really nice mobile workstation from a company called Titan Computers. It's the X4K with everything maxed out except for the OS, I provided that on my own. I paid a small fortune for it - I'd not spent that much on a laptop in years. Given that my previous laptops lower specs than the new one, I'm a bit impressed with it but not overly so. I'm impressed that it is in a laptop but I'm not impressed in the nature of the beast - I can get (and have) that in desktops. I'm not sure that I'm expressing that well. It is impressive but only because it's in a laptop - and it's not that impressive because I could have bought the same damned thing (pretty much) a few years ago and just opted to not bother - because it's not that much more impressive.
So, we're not seeing anything impressive because we're acclimated to the scene. If we could see today's hardware back in, say, 2000 (or 1995) we'd be pretty damned impressed. They're good computers, they're excellent computers. We're desensitized, so to speak, so we're not thinking of them as good computers but, really, they're fantastic machines.
And yes, that goes for Apple. They do make good computers. They make fine computers. We're just not impressed because there haven't been any great leaps forward in what seems like a long time and many of us were there for the days when we'd refresh every single year and we were impressed with how much change had occurred during that cycle. I dunno? That's kind of what it seems like to me. I'd go on to try to explain it a bit better but I'm actually a bit time constrained.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
> ...it seems to be the PC guys that are fussy about looks over performance.
No, it seems like the "PC guys" are fussy about choice, but you know that. It's tough to admit, surely. They can choose an external or an internal solution. You don't get that *choice* at all. It's cute that you try to get in some sort of perceived slight or negative remark but, really, we're not that dumb. Well, I'm not - I can't speak for the rest. I'm not sure how you define "PC guys" but I'll see if I can help you out.
Just because it works for you and is your preferred method (which it probably isn't but you're compelled to say it is because you need affirmation and you've tied your self-worth and identity to a brand) does not actually mean that it works for everyone or that it is their preferred method. Trying to claim it's about looks is just plain silly and I doubt anyone's dumb enough to fall for it.
No, I suspect the PC users care about being able to make choices. That's something you gave up when you decide to use an Apple. You decided to limit your other choices. That's fine but tying your identity to it, seeking affirmation, and attempting to claim some sort of superiority for having done so is just plain silly and childish. You've tied yourself and your identity to something you've no control over, did not contribute to, and have ceased to be rational about that choice. It is rather telling, unfortunately.
It's sad that you've got a frail ego, low self-worth, and few meaningful accomplishments in life. If those things were a bit different, a bit improved, you might not have to bolster yourself-image with a bunch of code you didn't write, a device you didn't create, and a brand you have no control over. Your choice of OS is not significant, important, or meaningful. I know that's rough to hear but the sooner you realize this the better off you'll be.
Get a dog, climb a mountain, run a race, lose a few pounds, brush your teeth, take a shower, get a real friend, go on a date with someone you think is cute, whatever... But do something, something meaningful and an accomplishment that makes you feel good about yourself. Relying on getting an ego boost from your computer is really kind of sad. Seriously, that's not a slight nor is my intent to be derogatory.
It really is kind of sad to see a grown adult tie so much of their identity to something they've no control over. It's like blind patriotism or being proud of accomplishments that you didn't contribute to. Life would be so much more meaningful for you if you actually accomplish something you can be proud about. I'm baffled as to why you might feel superior for having chosen to have fewer choices.
There are lots of reasons to like Apple but to tie your identity to it enough to cause delusions and irrational thinking is indicative of poor mental health and a frail ego. That you'd twist logic so far, just to make a perceived slight, really does demonstrate your unhealthy mental process and that sort of process doesn't happen without reason. There's almost always a cause, it could be as simple as a chemical imbalance. I don't know how old you are but if this sort of thing keeps up and you find that you're unable to control it then you might want to seek professional help.
It's like arguing over who is using the better programming language instead of using quantifiable metrics to determine which of you wrote the better program. It's like thinking that rooting for a certain sports team makes you a better person. It's like thinking that believing in a certain deity makes you a better person - even if that belief doesn't mean you've changed your behavior. Seriously, I wish you luck but get help with that.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I'm about to unleash a harsh opinion. I worked for Apple from 1995 until 2001.
It's over honestly. I own no current Apple equipment, and I'm not interested in any. (more below)
Steve Jobs was the savior of the company to be sure- but he also pulled Apple out of the computer market in a big way. During my time you could by a Mac that would run circles around anything you could obtain on a PC. Heck going back to NuBus there was astounding graphics capability on Macs. When the company rolled out the G3/G4/G5 processors- they were stepping all over Intel based machines in big ways. And you could get aftermarket GPUs which were the equals of their PC counterparts.
Then came the start of what I consider to be the "dumbing down" of these computers. One of the first things I noticed was that Apple was making machines that were a generation behind in memory architecture. Then they moved off of RISC and starting using Intel chips. Then the logic boards were reportedly "Asus compatible".
What has happened since the glory days? Well- they stopped focusing on computing. It appears to be an afterthought. It's iPods... iPhones.... iWatches. The Mac is essentially a PC architecture with an alternative operating system. Anyone who knows that buys a PC, unless they think that Mac OS has something really compelling.
It is sad that this is happening. Apple had a compelling reason to be in the marketplace, and many firsts ion new and killer technology. Now I'm looking at artsy fartsy foo foo machines with no guts. I don't mind foo foo design- I might even like it. But I've got 8 x86 cores, watercooled,16gb of RAM, and a GTX 980 sitting next to me which cost me $1400.00 to build. And you could buy the machine assembled for not much more.
Rift isn't going to support VR on the Mac. And I certainly do not blame them. The platform is not not being maintained well or growing. From my perspective Apple is sucking the marrow out of the Macintosh until the bone is dry.
If in fact VR is the "next killer app" on the desktop- Apple appears to have not prepared for it at all.
So once in a while I pull out my old G3/604 machines. Load up Rhapsody Dev release from 1998- and enjoy the wave of nostalgia. Then I go back to my PC and do some work, with multiple virtual machines, running multiple OS's, with a movie playing on my third monitor....
This is of course my opinion. Apple isn't in the computer market anymore....
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."