what you all forget about AAo is that 1) it's ran by the army (price is their biggest concern) and 2) b/c of #1, they contracted SCI (worst host ever).
maybe if 90% of players didnt have 50% packet loss and 300 ping, and if auth servers werent down 10% of ALL THE TIME, then MAYBE it would be a decent game. these reasons, however, make any serious gamer shy away and not look back.
viva la HomeLAN
uh, 1st off, quicktime, premier, word, and quakeIII all dont have 64-bit support.
premier (as far as i know) and word both dont have dual proc support.
Computer Magazines suck at everything besides telling what prebuilt computer incompetant "tech" shoppers should buy
Windows XP 64 is still in beta and the G5 is only running a tweaked, special version of Jaguar. Panther offers more support for 64-bit. OS X overall is not a true 64-bit OS.
Who in there right mind would run a dual-G5 rig specifically for Word and Quake III? you get a Mac for graphics and video design, not typing up documents (however important that may be, not the primary goal)
Quake III is OLD. it doesnt even touch the Radeon 9800's potential is a pretty useless benchmark. Who would buy a $4000+ machine (incl. monitor) to play quake 3?
now i realize they had to make do with what is currently available, but this is the shittiest benchmark you could ever do to compare a Mac and a PC. why even do the article? why not wait a few months and do something that actually indicates performance? did i mention Computer Magazines are blind? this was a completely pointless article, there are way too many variables. also, dont tell me that they tested it using software that most people would commonly use. bull. wait 4-5 months when all the software has 64-bit support and then run the benchmark.
Slashdot Mirror
what you all forget about AAo is that 1) it's ran by the army (price is their biggest concern) and 2) b/c of #1, they contracted SCI (worst host ever). maybe if 90% of players didnt have 50% packet loss and 300 ping, and if auth servers werent down 10% of ALL THE TIME, then MAYBE it would be a decent game. these reasons, however, make any serious gamer shy away and not look back. viva la HomeLAN
i saw this reported on broadbandreports.com in july or august
uh, 1st off, quicktime, premier, word, and quakeIII all dont have 64-bit support. premier (as far as i know) and word both dont have dual proc support. Computer Magazines suck at everything besides telling what prebuilt computer incompetant "tech" shoppers should buy Windows XP 64 is still in beta and the G5 is only running a tweaked, special version of Jaguar. Panther offers more support for 64-bit. OS X overall is not a true 64-bit OS. Who in there right mind would run a dual-G5 rig specifically for Word and Quake III? you get a Mac for graphics and video design, not typing up documents (however important that may be, not the primary goal) Quake III is OLD. it doesnt even touch the Radeon 9800's potential is a pretty useless benchmark. Who would buy a $4000+ machine (incl. monitor) to play quake 3? now i realize they had to make do with what is currently available, but this is the shittiest benchmark you could ever do to compare a Mac and a PC. why even do the article? why not wait a few months and do something that actually indicates performance? did i mention Computer Magazines are blind? this was a completely pointless article, there are way too many variables. also, dont tell me that they tested it using software that most people would commonly use. bull. wait 4-5 months when all the software has 64-bit support and then run the benchmark.