It seems we need to get this out of our system before we can move on.
Fine. You provoked this, 3371-Alpha. irons hadn't said anything about people's choices in hardware since January 22nd, until you brought it up again. Worse, you prompted the derailment of a thread about active engine development.
I refute two of your arguments. First:
3371-Alpha wrote:2) The best era for Mac gaming was the mid-90s to early 2000s. Don't believe me? Check out Macintosh Garden, look at all them games.
Emphasis mine. Perhaps that seemed like a safe assertion on a board dedicated to Marathon. But on the contrary, that era was the dark age of Mac gaming.
John Carmack in 2008 wrote:
The truth is Steve Jobs doesn't care about games.... He's not a gamer. It's difficult to ask somebody to get behind something they don't really believe in. I mean obviously he believes in the music and the iTunes and that whole side of things, and the media side of things, and he gets it and he pushes it and they do wonderful things with that, but he's not a gamer. That's just the bottom line about it.
There are people at Apple who want to support all this ... but it's just that's not what the Mac platform's about, and I don't really expect that to change because it's a tough equation now that you've got everybody dual-booting their Macs and everything: why would you want to go to the extra trouble of [developing games for Mac]?
Mac gamers were at the mercy of an Apple CEO that didn't particularly support the companies that could give them what they wanted. While I didn't think I'd say this back in 2005, thank goodness for the move to Intel processors. You tout the number of games on Mac Garden? As of today, there are 2,991 games you can buy on Steam for OS X
. To be clear, that means not rebooting to a different operating system, and not running an emulator, but running natively. With more games, more variety of games, and quicker ports, Mac gamers today are certainly in a better place than they were in PowerPC days.
Secondly, speaking of rebooting:
3371-Alpha wrote:One device, every program! That's the way it should be.
3371-Alpha wrote:...in order for a machine to be classified as IBM PC compatible ... the machine must be capable of booting some form of Windows or an MS-DOS/NT-like OS such as FreeDOS...
My computer is capable of neither...
So by your own admission, your computer setup is not the way it should be. Did you hold out this long when Apple switched architectures from Motorola 68k to PowerPC? Probably not. Because what's really at issue isn't any particular technical advantage. It's that Intel represents the old Evil Empire
, and you can't let that go. Never mind that the PowerPC has also powered, for instance, Microsoft exclusive games on the Xbox 360. Never mind that today Apple's adversaries are Google and Samsung, and Intel is its partner. And never mind that Apple itself
has become an empire of sorts: the world's largest tech company
by total assets. You're willing to dismiss generations of progress for the sake of 'purity.'