GMod on the mac - Garry's Mod

^ Agree I play gmod at home on my PC, But im getting a mac from school and would be nice to play gmod there too ^^

I don't get why a school would want to use macs, they are more expensive. But if you get old ones...everything's cheaper when it's from 2004!

[QUOTE=MacTrekkie;24890970]Bootcamp :smug:[/QUOTE] Sub-par hardware :smug: [QUOTE=MacTrekkie;24891222]Um... Yeah I know, it forces you to run windows *gasp!* But it works well.. As well as Windows does anyways.[/QUOTE] You went through the effort of saying you aren't a bigoted fanboy, just to post this? Ahahah, you really are clueless. Windows works fine if you aren't a drooling moron.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;24898570]Sub-par hardware :smug:[/quote] In what way? [quote]You went through the effort of saying you aren't a bigoted fanboy, just to post this? Ahahah, you really are clueless. Windows works fine if you aren't a drooling moron.[/QUOTE] Sarcasm.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;24898570]Windows works fine if you aren't a drooling moron.[/QUOTE] This. [img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/rating/tick.png[/img]

[QUOTE=MacTrekkie;24899368]In what way?[/QUOTE] Almost [B]every[/B] way. Their Mac Pro line, you are supplied with Xeon processors, which are designed primarily for compiling code and running server applications. yet they flaunt it as a general purpose machine, then charge a good £1,000 to upgrade the CPU. In the case of Garry's Mac Pro, you get given a shittastic GT 120, claimed to be a GPU capable of heavy loads. for the price you pay, yeah, the hardware is abysmal.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;24899617]Almost [B]every[/B] way. Their Mac Pro line, you are supplied with Xeon processors, which are designed primarily for compiling code and running server applications. yet they flaunt it as a general purpose machine, then charge a good £1,000 to upgrade the CPU. In the case of Garry's Mac Pro, you get given a shittastic GT 120, claimed to be a GPU capable of heavy loads. for the price you pay, yeah, the hardware is abysmal.[/QUOTE] And then you pay an extra $1000 for the logo.

I got nothing against Apple and their overpriced products; Steve Jobs on the other hand, hes a fucking cunt.

[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;24899829]I Steve Jobs on the other hand, hes a fucking cunt.[/QUOTE] Someone who sees it my way. :hfive: Perfectionist loser.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;24899617]Almost [B]every[/B] way. Their Mac Pro line, you are supplied with Xeon processors, which are designed primarily for compiling code and running server applications. yet they flaunt it as a general purpose machine, then charge a good £1,000 to upgrade the CPU. In the case of Garry's Mac Pro, you get given a shittastic GT 120, claimed to be a GPU capable of heavy loads. for the price you pay, yeah, the hardware is abysmal.[/QUOTE] Okay then, how about this comparison. I have a MacBook Pro. It cost around $2300. It has an Intel Core 2 Duo running at 2.8 gigahertz, a nVidia 9600m GT with 512mb, 4 gigabytes of ram, a 500 gigabyte hard drive. It has a fifteen inch glossy screen with a 170 degree viewing angle. About a year old. My friend just got an Acer something or other 17 inch. It has an abysmal screen with lower resolution than mine and a, maybe, 90 degree viewing angle. It has an intel Core i7 running at 1.6 gigahertz(same as an Intel Atom, I might add.) that can boost up to around 2 gigahertz. Now, I know that means four cores, but when are you going to be using four cores at once? It has 3 gigabytes of ram, an ATI Mobility Radeon 5470 with 512mb vram, and a 320 gigabyte hard drive. It cost $2000, and when running windows underperforms mine by a significant margin in speed tests. I don't know about you, but I think my $300 extra are well spent. Also, mine is not made of plastic and can survive drops. P.S: Mac Pro is a bad example of cost effectiveness(read: $7k with hardware maxed), however the new ones are better.

It's also an acer, that's not a good comparison. Compare it to ASUS or Sony, Toshiba, a [i]good[/i] brand. Also, laptops are meant to withstand slight drops.

[QUOTE=MacTrekkie;24900338]Okay then, how about this comparison. I have a MacBook Pro. It cost around $2300. It has an Intel Core 2 Duo running at 2.8 gigahertz, a nVidia 9600m GT with 512mb, 4 gigabytes of ram, a 500 gigabyte hard drive. It has a fifteen inch glossy screen with a 170 degree viewing angle. About a year old. My friend just got an Acer something or other 17 inch. It has an abysmal screen with lower resolution than mine and a, maybe, 90 degree viewing angle. It has an intel Core i7 running at 1.6 gigahertz(same as an Intel Atom, I might add.) that can boost up to around 2 gigahertz. Now, I know that means four cores, but when are you going to be using four cores at once? It has 3 gigabytes of ram, an ATI Mobility Radeon 5470 with 512mb vram, and a 320 gigabyte hard drive. It cost $2000, and when running windows underperforms mine by a significant margin in speed tests. I don't know about you, but I think my $300 extra are well spent. Also, mine is not made of plastic and can survive drops. P.S: Mac Pro is a bad example of cost effectiveness(read: $7k with hardware maxed), however the new ones are better.[/QUOTE] I was looking at the newer models, and at least Apple now offer Radeon HD 5770, 4870s instead of GT 120s. They are finally making the mac Pro do what it should. But still, you are using one of the slightly worse brands for comparison. due to that fact so many manufacturers can produce computers with Windows on them, while Apple hold a monopoly over Mac OSX PC production there isn't really a good way to compare them. Also clock speed isn't everything in terms of performance, I'd say the i7 would outperform your CPU if it wasn't on such a low clock. but that would be skewing the comparison, we can't do that :eng101:

[QUOTE=MacTrekkie;24900338]Okay then, how about this comparison. I have a MacBook Pro. It cost around $2300. It has an Intel Core 2 Duo running at 2.8 gigahertz, a nVidia 9600m GT with 512mb, 4 gigabytes of ram, a 500 gigabyte hard drive. It has a fifteen inch glossy screen with a 170 degree viewing angle. About a year old. My friend just got an Acer something or other 17 inch. It has an abysmal screen with lower resolution than mine and a, maybe, 90 degree viewing angle. It has an intel Core i7 running at 1.6 gigahertz(same as an Intel Atom, I might add.) that can boost up to around 2 gigahertz. Now, I know that means four cores, but when are you going to be using four cores at once? It has 3 gigabytes of ram, an ATI Mobility Radeon 5470 with 512mb vram, and a 320 gigabyte hard drive. It cost $2000, and when running windows underperforms mine by a significant margin in speed tests. I don't know about you, but I think my $300 extra are well spent. Also, mine is not made of plastic and can survive drops. P.S: Mac Pro is a bad example of cost effectiveness(read: $7k with hardware maxed), however the new ones are better.[/QUOTE] A 1.6Ghz i7 will theoretically run at 3.2Ghz when not utilising the logical cores. When running at 1.6Ghz, it has 8 logical cores, or more specifically, Core 0 , 1 , 2 , 4 are physical, cores 3 , 5 , 6 and 7 are logical. If I remember correctly, anyway.