Will Macs ever be a force in gaming?

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

like stated, when you have an awesome rig, there is no need for one or the other, you can simply have both (form factor is a difference, i just don't see the point in having a tight spaced imac for a stationary machine.)

It's very neat and tidy. It's also the only consumer desktop Mac.

hell the new ipad runs hot as shit for games, yet apple pulled the same excuse "it's well within thermal specifications" even though, if i remember right, it was hot to the touch after some games played on it for merely 10 minutes? now don't quote me on that last part, but i'm pretty sure it is that or is dead close, and that just doesn't sit right with me.

I own the iPad 3 and as I expected those "claims" were all hyperbole. It's got a dual-core Cortex A9 CPU and a quad-core SGX543 GPU so the bottom left corner where the A5X SoC is located does get warm, but never anywhere near enough that you need to put it down.

50 c = 50 celcius, which is the highest it's gotten under max load on ultra settings, which was confirmed with witcher 2 (heavy graphics game)

Ah okay gotcha, but how fast were your fans spinning? (You can speed the iMac's up with a utility, if you want a cooler system.)

and yeah, that is an awesome all in one factor, i just don't ever see myself ever spending that much on something like that, especially it being stationary, i'll just build my own for what, half the price? if apple wasn't so anal and close platformed, i'd possibly consider getting it if i hit it rich in the job market.

Yeah that's fair enough, although I'm not sure you could build your own for half the price. By the time you've got the 27 inch 1440p display, the quad-core i5 IB CPU and the 7870 desktop GPU, you're looking at like $1.5k -- then you've got $500 for the rest of the components.

neat and tidy? you clearly haven't seen the inside of too many custom rigs..my shit is flawless with the wiring, i have probably 15 zip ties in there feeding the wires exactly where to go for the best space management. if you are that detrimental on having OSX, then more power to you, although there are hacked versions of it for much cheaper.

have you actually played games that are highly gpu intensive on your new ipad? because if not, then yeah, it's fine, but i'm talking max load, like i do with my rig quite often.

the fans were spinning about 85% at the time? I can turn em up and down, tend to keep em at 50% as it's unneeded usually, i've pumped em up to 100% on a couple of days when the Air conditioner was broken and it was hot as hell outside.

curious, what is your fascination with 1440p? most software doesn't even consider it much yet, what is the point in getting slightly better textures that are almost negligible to the human eye?

when it actually does come out, i'll do a number crunch on a pc matched spec vs it, and i guarantee it'll be 500+ bucks cheaper, which to me, is more than enough to say hell no to that. same reason why i mostly don't buy nvidia/intel sometimes, it gets too damn pricey for the performance.

 

[Freechoice]

snip

You having said that reminds me of a young professor I had that wanted 32 gigs of RAM in his Mac.

I had a wat moment. He didn't mention the GPU either. Go figure.

 

[eventhorizon525]

snip

You having said that reminds me of a young professor I had that wanted 32 gigs of RAM in his Mac.

I had a wat moment. He didn't mention the GPU either. Go figure.

32... gigs? What is this I don't even.... Seriously, what the heck did he ever think he was going to run?

More on topic: I don't see Mac getting into the gaming scene until they loosen their grip on their software some or become a much larger force in gaming. Given the restrictions/differences in Macs, it simply isn't worth the money to make games for both all the time.

Also the price/performance ratio is poor compared to custom rigs, and still not great against a number of Windows machines (though obviously there are exceptions that don't compare quite as well).

Macs sell based on their images and simplicity. Heck, basically all Mac products sell on that basis. Moving towards more widespread gaming would be an odd departure from their primary business model.

 

[La Barata]

Okay, okay. I needed a good laugh. Thanks, I really appreciate this thread.

Heh, macs and gaming.... Maybe next, Congress will legalize piracy!

 

[Windcaler]

I think its possible that macs could become a big part of gaming in the future but they couldnt till now because of licensing problems.

I dont know much about Macs but Ive heard they're hard for a regular person to build and customize by themselves. You always have to have the company heavily involved to get them working the way you want them to.

For what its worth I would welcome Macs to the gaming market. More competition can only be good for consumers

 

[steelbom]

Is that an Apple display or a third party one? If it's Apple, the price is anywhere between 1.5 3 times higher than the commonly purchased equivalent.

That's a common misconception. It's $999 for Apple's 27 inch 1440p LED backlight IPS display, and you're looking at about $799-$899 for something from Dell. Nonetheless I like Apple's displays so it's quite likely that I would purchase one again, although I would look at the other offerings.

neat and tidy? you clearly haven't seen the inside of too many custom rigs..my shit is flawless with the wiring, i have probably 15 zip ties in there feeding the wires exactly where to go for the best space management. if you are that detrimental on having OSX, then more power to you, although there are hacked versions of it for much cheaper.

Ah I'm not talking about inside a desktop -- I know they can be wired quite beautifully. I'm talking about how much space it takes on the desk -- wireless keyboard, mouse, and sleek display. There's nothing underneath either.

have you actually played games that are highly gpu intensive on your new ipad? because if not, then yeah, it's fine, but i'm talking max load, like i do with my rig quite often.

Haha that's a fair question, and the answer is yes. I'm somewhat of a mobile enthusiast. I'm really looking forward to the PowerVR SGX 600 series which will bring console level graphics (and more) to mobile devices.

I own all of the most graphically impressive games. Infinity Blade 2, Sky Gamblers: Air Supremacy, N.O.V.A 3, etc.

the fans were spinning about 85% at the time? I can turn em up and down, tend to keep em at 50% as it's unneeded usually, i've pumped em up to 100% on a couple of days when the Air conditioner was broken and it was hot as hell outside.

I see. That's why your temps are so low. The iMac's fans run at what I'd guess is about 15-20% (1000-1200 RPM) and they never move from it. You could notch them up to 50% or higher and get significantly better temps, I've done so in the past but it's pointless and noisy.

curious, what is your fascination with 1440p? most software doesn't even consider it much yet, what is the point in getting slightly better textures that are almost negligible to the human eye?

Haha, I don't have a fascination with 1440p, I have a fascination with 5120x2880 and higher lol xD.

What do you mean by "most software doesn't even consider it much yet"? Games look fantastic on a 27 inch display, and at that PPI, and I've never encountered any software which doesn't work on a 1440p monitor -- you've just got a lot more space to do things. It's great for everything (I've used one for years, and my dad has a 30 inch).

The next iMac's (and MacBook Air's and MacBook Pro's) are supposed to have a 'retina' display. So that 7970M may be trying to power a 5120x2880 resolution, haha... lol. Tough job.

when it actually does come out, i'll do a number crunch on a pc matched spec vs it, and i guarantee it'll be 500+ bucks cheaper, which to me, is more than enough to say hell no to that. same reason why i mostly don't buy nvidia/intel sometimes, it gets too damn pricey for the performance.

PM me the results, I'll look forward to it. The display will run you $1k from Apple or $800-$900 from a third party, that leaves $1k - $1.2k for the internals. I'd say for a hard core gamer, the inability to upgrade your system is really the biggest reason not to get the iMac. But if you're after the form factor or OS X, it's a nice system.

 

[Freechoice]

Is that an Apple display or a third party one? If it's Apple, the price is anywhere between 1.5 3 times higher than the commonly purchased equivalent.

That's a common misconception. It's $999 for Apple's 27 inch 1440p LED backlight IPS display, and you're looking at about $799-$899 for something from Dell. Nonetheless I like Apple's displays so it's quite likely that I would purchase one again, although I would look at the other offerings.

God. I looked up the cost of a 1080p 27 inch and it's 3 times less than that of 1440p monitor. You're seriously willing to shell out 700 bucks more for a minor graphical increase?

And I believe that guy was talking about games that actively support 1440p and are not just getting the tangential benefits of being on a monitor with that resolution.

 

[veloper]

Actually, if you're going to build a computer from scratch, your only option for an operating system is Windows.

If we're talking strictly for gaming, yes. Otherwise, there's always Linux.

Yes, but Linux is held back by it's biggest flaw when it comes to gaming.

The entire system is as user friendly as a manual written in Aramaic.

That's not the biggest hurdle. The video drivers don't get alot of attention on linux. Nvidia aren't as bad as AMD/ATI in this regard, but linux is still an afterthought for the hardware vendors. Worse, OGL has become a relic even on the windows game platform.

OT: as for Mac, not going to be a major gaming platform because Macs are more expensive and PC gamers tend to be alot more savvy on average, going for the best bang per buck and doing alot of research on individual components.

 

[steelbom]

God. I looked up the cost of a 1080p 27 inch and it's 3 times less than that of 1440p monitor. You're seriously willing to shell out 700 bucks more for a minor graphical increase?

It's no minor improvement. And shoot me the link to this 27 inch 1080p display you've found, I doubt it's the same quality as a 27 inch 1440p display.

And I believe that guy was talking about games that actively support 1440p and are not just getting the tangential benefits of being on a monitor with that resolution.

I don't know anything about games supporting that resolution but every game I've ever played on my 1440p iMac monitor looked great. I don't want a 1080p image stretched across such a large screen, I think even the pixelation on a 108 PPI 1440p monitor is too much yet alone the 88 PPI of a 27 inch 1080p monitor.

 

[Freechoice]

God. I looked up the cost of a 1080p 27 inch and it's 3 times less than that of 1440p monitor. You're seriously willing to shell out 700 bucks more for a minor graphical increase?

It's no minor improvement. And shoot me the link to this 27 inch 1080p display you've found, I doubt it's the same quality as a 27 inch 1440p display.

And I believe that guy was talking about games that actively support 1440p and are not just getting the tangential benefits of being on a monitor with that resolution.

I don't know anything about games supporting that resolution but every game I've ever played on my 1440p iMac monitor looked great. I don't want a 1080p image stretched across such a large screen, I think even the pixelation on a 108 PPI 1440p monitor is too much yet alone the 88 PPI of a 27 inch 1080p monitor.

Let me google that for you [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=27+inch+1080p+monitor]

I went looking for a 1080p/1440p comparison and there is no real consensus on whether it's significantly better or not. What was discussed was a 60hz refresh rate and a 120hz refresh rate with many people noting that 120hz was far and away superior to the 60hz.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2241839

 

[steelbom]

Let me google that for you [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=27+inch+1080p+monitor]

That doesn't help. I know how to search for 27 inch 1080p monitors but I've no idea which one you looked at specifically, and I don't care to guess either.

I went looking for a 1080p/1440p comparison and there is no real consensus on whether it's significantly better or not. What was discussed was a 60hz refresh rate and a 120hz refresh rate with many people noting that 120hz was far and away superior to the 60hz.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2241839

At 27 inches 1440p is much better -- said display has a PPI of 108 while at 1080p the same size monitor only has a PPI of 88. At 21.5 inches, 1080p is 102 PPI -- so going to 88 is a substantial downgrade in sharpness. Pixels will be more obvious, and aliasing in games more noticeable, whereas a 27 inch 1440p display will improve it slightly as well as giving you a mighty large display that fills your field of vision.

Here's a thread discussing the issue: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18373885

EDIT: an additional pro to having 1440p on a desktop is the additional screen real estate, it's just great.

 

[Waaghpowa]

The entire system is as user friendly as a manual written in Aramaic.

Ever try Ubuntu? Not only is it considered "Baby's first Linux" but it's very user friendly. There are many things me and my dad discovered about it that make it more user friendly than Windows.

Example: We have an HP printer and it was giving us a hard time when we wanted to scan something. We couldn't just hit the scan button without it trying to open up some sort of scan wizard or asking us to install the HP software. My dad tried it on Ubuntu and it did the scan immediately, quickly and with no fuss about software or wizards.

The point is that Windows is so bloated with extra crap that it can get in the way of doing something simple, like scanning. Ubuntu has so many drivers built in, with no extra fat, that it's capable of doing the same job as windows faster and more efficiently. Granted, there are times where you need to consult a forum to do something advanced that usually ends in accessing the terminal, which isn't a big problem for me since I know some Unix, but Linux isn't as unfriendly as people perceive it to be anymore.

 

[joe-h2o]

Never gonna happen.
People complain how expensive new consoles are. What would they say if they had to 2 times more than for a PC of the same strength.

Just today I was looking in a local shop for ram. Kingstone 4GB DDR3 1333 MHz was around 30$, while 2 GB of DDR3 for a Mac was 150$.

What?

Someone was trying to pull a fast one, since RAM for the Mac is *literally identical* to the RAM you put in a PC. That 4GB DDR3 for $30 works just fine in a Mac (assuming the Mac is expecting DDR3 - depending on the model they take all manner of different DDR, but since the switch to Intel CPUs in 2005/2006 they have taken standard PC RAM. Anyone trying to sell you "special" Mac RAM for a modern Mac (with an Intel CPU) is ripping you off.

On topic, Macs are not as expensive as they once were, but they *are* more expensive than equivalent PCs - there's no getting around that, but then it depends on what you consider value for money. I have an iMac and it is a fantastic machine. It's certainly no graphical monster, but then I don't need 500W to power the GPU. I didn't buy it primarily to game on, although I do game with it.

In terms of money spent, if I were to buy a PC just for gaming then it would cost me more money that I'd want to spend on a machine that only played games (I would not use it for anything else), while I used my Mac for everything else I do. So while the Mac cost more than a PC in the first place, that was worth it to me, since I can just fire up Steam and play a few games (or play some old school games too, like the Mac-native version of Quake 3, or Quake 4, or Civ 4, Unreal Tournament 2k4 etc), but also be able to easily flip over into Windows via boot camp to play things like Fallout: New Vegas and so on where there is currently no native Mac version.

What Apple are starting to do right is take the GPU seriously. In previous generations they really did ship underpowered GPUs and it was quite telling, but in the past couple of years they have started to address that flaw. They're still not right at the cutting edge, but they are certainly shipping decent mid to high range cards in their laptops and desktops now (ignore the Mac Pro - it's simply not designed as a consumer computer, it's expensive and hasn't been updated in a while).

The current top end iMacs ship with a Radeon 6970M 1GB (2GB option), which is no slouch (although it is a mobile card, due to the size and heat issues of the iMac), and all current indications are that the 2012 iMac that should be launching in June will ship with the 7970M - currently one of the best mobile GPUs you can get.

With the move to Intel CPUs and finally starting to take GPUs seriously, I see no reason why Macs won't be perfectly suitable for gaming in the future. They're certainly never going to be the domain of the serious hardcore gamer with the liquid cooled rig and the Crossfire setup with 6 screens, but they will fulfil the needs of many people who want to play games on their computer among many other things that they do.

In other words, I think that gaming will become platform agnostic over time as the Mac install base grows (it has been growing steadily for 6 years straight, and now 1 in 5 new computers sold in the US is a Mac. With the ability to dual boot into Windows, and with more and more games shipping natively on Steam and through the Mac App Store I think the future of gaming on the Mac is pretty bright.

yes, and while that is all good and dandy for that new 2012 model, with the 7970m in it, it'll rack that price up to what, 2000 dollars? forget that, like i mentioned before, i'd rather save myself 500+ dollars with even better upgrades and being able to fix it myself then have to deal with apple (my friends macbook had a sticky key, he didn't know what he was doing so he sent it in, they charged him 600 dollars to fix it...A STICKY KEY. yeah, i'm not supporting any company that is ridiculous like that.)

it might be one of the best "all in one" bundles out there, but honestly, if i am buying a monitor, then i'll just get a tower, i don't need it "all in one", that is just silly to me. so i just don't see the point in condensing it down like that when it's obviously stationary. while that is all good and dandy that you are personally satisfied with that price and playing games at those settings, really that is awesome that you are happy with it, i'm on the other hand not at all, i'm playing all those games at max settings for a much cheaper price, in which i can do simple upgrades instead buying a whole new imac each time.

Ah, come on. Your anecdote is nice, but it doesn't represent Apple support as a whole. I've had many dealings with them over the years and they've always been excellent to me - when I had the ethernet port on a Powermac G5 play up with a third party gig switch they offered me a choice of either loaning me a separate PowerMac while they investigated my problem or shipping me a PCI ethernet card with gig ports on it to use while the machine was still in use (it was the main piece of an NLE suite) to bypass the damaged port on the logic board.

Tales of "$600 to fix a key!" are uncommon. If it was a MBP and they swapped out the keyboard (depending on model) they may have replaced the top case too. I've had them do a keyboard swap (not under warranty) and they've unexpectedly replaced the top case for free as part of the repair. They're generally pretty good and score consistently highly in consumer surveys.

Either way, I think you're not their target market as a custom rig builder, although I have seen some *outrageous* Hackintoshes with water cooling and custom acrylic cases and so on that have looked beautiful, so it's not unheard of.

For my own preference, the iMac suits my needs perfectly and was great value for money - the fact that I can game on it to a reasonable level is a major bonus to me. The only reason mine is starting to show its age (late 2006 Core 2 Duo) is the GPU is outdated now - a trade off I knew I'd be making with an all in one machine. It has lasted me 6 years, however. With the newer iMacs shipping with pretty respectable GPUs now, when I finally replace this one I know I'll be able to get at least 5 years out of it.

 

[joe-h2o]

Edit: Doh, I have posted twice in a row, is that not allowed? Mods? I can merge this post with the one above if necessary?

No, but who gets a computer for one particular reason? I get the best of both worlds--the wonderful Mac interface, better use of Adobe programs, and virus-free browsing, and then the programs I can't use with Mac on the Windows partition. I say why choose one when you don't have to? Of course it's not for everybody, but don't knock it just because it's not your thing.

I'm just nitpicking here, but
"wonderful mac interface" - Opinion
"Better use of adobe" - not sure, can't comment
Virus free browsing - not necessarily true, there are viruses for Mac, just that the market share is too small to have a large enough impact for anyone to care

Also, I don't understand why people think needing a second OS is a plus. Why should you need a second OS, why not one that can do it all? It's the main reason I still haven't switched to Linux because I want to be able to literally do everything on it. Only thing holding me back is DirectX for games. Having a partition with a second OS is a massive waste of storage.

I would also like to mention that you can get Apple OSX without purchasing an Apple computer. They're called "Hackintosh" and are just self built PC's with Apple OSX installed on it like you would with Windows. So there's literally no reason to buy an Apple computer, unless you're doing it for their logos and "geniuses".

That is all in your opinion of course. I didn't buy my iMac for the "logos and geniuses", I bought it for the form factor because I used to travel with it a lot, and by that I mean "checked it in as baggage when flying back and forth to the US". I didn't want a laptop, but I also wanted whatever I bought to be relatively portable, and the fact that I can put the iMac in its box (which has a handle like a suitcase) and take it with me in about 5 minutes was a real boon.

I could build a Hackintosh (and I've seen some great ones), but my PC building days are in the past. I just want a machine that works without me having to mess with it or spend time looking for specific parts that will work together. I also don't use Windows as my primary OS, but that's a personal choice, not a damning of Windows (it's pretty good now as Windows 7, and I have to use it on work machines here and there), so I use a Mac. I don't have to mess with it, I don't need to worry about drivers, I just use it every day. Bonus, I can easily fire up some games on it when I want to chill out or go Deathclaw hunting. It's no monster rig, getting 90+ FPS on Crysis on Ultra settings, but I don't need it to be.

It's quite presumptuous of you to declare why other people choose to buy the computers they do - I have very good reasons why the cost of an iMac is worth it to me over the cheaper Hackintosh (or just a PC running Windows) and it has nothing to do with logos.

Also not really going to go into the virus point too much - there are no viruses in the wild for OS X. There was a proof of concept one written by a security guy, but the flaw was patched. There is a fair bit of malware out there for OS X, however, especially Trojans, so Mac users need to be vigilant. It's not to the point where a dedicated malware scanning tool is needed - careful internet use sensible precautions are all you need, much like Windows or Linux.

I don't see a reason that PC and Mac gamers need to be hostile to each other - us Mac users are a relatively untapped resource that can be a boon for PC gaming, especially now that modern Macs are taking decent GPUs more seriously. The more of us there are collectively, the better PC gaming looks to developers so they can look beyond consoles. Blizzard has always done this with dual platform releases, and Valve has now seen that they can also make a lot of money with Steam on the Mac. They wouldn't have made that sort of commitment if they didn't see it as a viable financial proposition.

Mac and PC gamers can play together! Let's not fight.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I'd love for more competition within the market.

But...Steve Jobs' formula is exactly the opposite: highly anti-competitive, extremely proprietary with their heads stuck so far up in the clouds they can smell Sky Mall's asshole.

You play in the Apple Garden, or you get the fuck out.

Sure, the App store is flooded with garbage because there's no quality control (it's a "free market"...pfft one competitive market owned by Apple), while everything else is control-control-control.

And believe me, I'd love nothing more than Microsoft to stop being the default one-stop-shop for most gaming, but they're the only OS developers seriously program for.

 

[Waaghpowa]

-

Not intending to sound hostile, but I think that the assumption that non OSX PC's require more maintenance, specifically on the drivers side like you mention, is a little old. Aside from Linux, I have never had to "worry" about drivers since Windows has a universal plug and play for just about everything, even for graphics drivers. I also use my Windows gaming PC everyday, without worry about something not working unless I'm doing something advanced. Even my games auto update via steam and certain non steam games, The Witcher 2 for example, also auto patch/update with no intervention on my behalf.

I can understand a reason for buying an iMac like in your case, but a lot of the reasons people do purchase Apple products in general are usually weak, misinformed and lacking any kind of research beyond their ads, especially if you remember those ludicrously stupid "Mac vs PC" ads.

And I know you didn't mention it regarding viruses, but my issue is how people perceive "no viruses" as being "more secure". I think this is where some people seem to get the wrong idea. If Mac gains a sizable market share, "no viruses" can no longer be a selling point as it will gain the attention of the kind of people who make them. This whole security thing is where a lot people go crazy. Anon hacks someones website and people freak out or blame a company for not implementing enough security when really people need to get over it and realize that nothing is safe no matter how hard you work to protect yourself.

 

[Zenn3k]

The amount of misinformation about Mac's and OSX in general in this thread is mind blowing.

The only Mac that costs 4-6 grand is a Mac Pro desktop, that is NOT a consumer level machine, its a industry level machine.

The consumer base model iMac, which is a LOT of computer, is like 1199. Can you build a bare bones power rig for like 800? Sure! But you still have to run Windows as your primary OS...and now you need a display to connect to it.

I use a Mac because I don't trust Windows with my personal data

If a Mac option is available, I'll take that over the Windows version, as its likely to have less overall issues. I don't need to run half my games in XPSP3 Compatibility Mode, for example.

snipped the bits that I wasn't going to refer to, just to keep it easy.

getting an imac for gaming? are you silly? the "industrial" version as you put it is the only one worthy of it, if you are looking to do any kind of serious gaming, my friends imac runs hotter than the sun trying to do some of the stuff my 700 dollar rig does.

and your acting like windows is inferior? i can't stand using OSX unless I have to, which is never the case, so that's completely opinionated there.

There is some slight bit better security sure, but if you are worth your weight in the slightest when it comes to computers, you shouldn't have to worry an ounce about ever having anything get leaked, unless you are that addicted to paying for porn subscriptions and such..

compatibility mode? the last time I used that was probably...4 years ago? with vista? on windows 7 i've played games of all ages, from planescape to witcher 2 to tf2 to fallout, and i have yet to have a single issue involving windows 7 in the slightest. that is an old problem that is near obsolete with windows 7. (not to mention it is the tiniest fix, what is it, two clicks with the mouse?)

i'm not even going to get into prices, because the prices are still outstandingly ridiculous for any kind of apple product, otherwise i would actually consider getting one as a secondary computer.

It runs hot because it uses the casing as part of the heat distribution. This isn't automatically "bad", its just different. Its not like you have to touch the back of your iMac, EVER during use.

No, wrong. The iMac is pretty beefy for a desktop gaming machine. I can run nearly anything released today on max settings with no issue, if you can do that, what more machine do you need?

I had boot camp installed for Windows gaming, SWTOR for example. If I don't run the game in capability mode for XP-SP3, the game crashes every 30 minutes. Thats not an issue with the iMac, its an issue with the game or windows.

Okay, so if you're good with computers, you can MOSTLY protect yourself, but the fact is fairly simple to understand.

Windows gets Virus
OSX does not.

Occasional Trojan? Maybe, but there has been no functional virus for OSX since its release.

Price? Couple hundred dollars more for a better OS. You might not like OSX, but I sure do. Windows sucks to use.

 

[joe-h2o]

-

Not intending to sound hostile, but I think that the assumption that non OSX PC's require more maintenance, specifically on the drivers side like you mention, is a little old. Aside from Linux, I have never had to "worry" about drivers since Windows has a universal plug and play for just about everything, even for graphics drivers. I also use my Windows gaming PC everyday, without worry about something not working unless I'm doing something advanced. Even my games auto update via steam and certain non steam games, The Witcher 2 for example, also auto patch/update with no intervention on my behalf.

I can understand a reason for buying an iMac like in your case, but a lot of the reasons people do purchase Apple products in general are usually weak, misinformed and lacking any kind of research beyond their ads, especially if you remember those ludicrously stupid "Mac vs PC" ads.

And I know you didn't mention it regarding viruses, but my issue is how people perceive "no viruses" as being "more secure". I think this is where some people seem to get the wrong idea. If Mac gains a sizable market share, "no viruses" can no longer be a selling point as it will gain the attention of the kind of people who make them. This whole security thing is where a lot people go crazy. Anon hacks someones website and people freak out or blame a company for not implementing enough security when really people need to get over it and realize that nothing is safe no matter how hard you work to protect yourself.

I didn't mean that non OS X machines require more maintenance, just that if I wanted to build a PC or a Hackintosh, as suggested to save money, that I'd have to research what parts to get to find the good deals, look specifically for hardware that would be compatible with OS X if making a Hackintosh (but with more flexibility if just making a PC), and so on. But if I just want to buy a computer off the shelf that works right away and does all I need then there's the iMac.

Once you have the machine you don;t need to do much - maintenance is about the same for both, just that the cost of building a PC from scratch is cheaper than the iMac in terms of just money but when you factor in my time and the fact that I wanted an all-in-one, the iMac price is more than worth it to me, even though it costs more than a PC I could build myself.

 

[Bvenged]

Macs? No.
Apple products? Maybe.

PC gaming is in PC territory; too versatile and too malleable for Apple to encroach on. Macs and Apple in general just aren't that - they go for user-friendliness, simplicity and standardisation. PC gaming isn't really any of that. We have consoles covering that segment of gaming. Which is why I'm surprised Apple haven't invested in the console market ready for the next gen yet. It's right up their street.

But why would they bother at all? They own the pocket-gaming market near-enough, and arguable the handheld gaming market because of that, too. They're secure in mobile gaming sector so why both wasting time in well-established market areas as well?

They could just keep developing mobile gaming on their latest iSpentAFortuneOnAPhoneBecauseThoseAppsAren'tBuyingThemselves platforms. no point expanding when there's still room to enhance and improve what they've already got securely.