I think viability tends to be over- or under-estimated. Mac and Linux aren't going to be a huge source of revenue next to Windows any time soon, but it's not completely barren, either. Private contractors and companies have been porting commercial games and publishing them on Linux for well over a decade, now. id Software releases Linux versions of their games, and have done so since Doom or Quake -- not sure when they started Mac versions, but there's some of them, too. There really is a good number of commercial games available if you know where to look, and there is plenty of room for it to grow if properly nurtured (Linux has become very user friendly over the years, so the more well-known games Linux gets, the more people will take an active interest in Linux, which will drive demand for more games, etc).

Ryan Gordon, one of the more prolific figures who's ported some of the more well-known titles like UT2004, Serious Sam, and Prey, said in a recent interview (seen http://www.abclinuxu.cz/clanky/rozhovor-ryan-c.-gordon-icculus?page=1) that the biggest hurdles Linux has to gaining traction as a gaming platform is perception and misinformation, and I think that applies to OSX, too. Combined with no one to "speak for" Linux (like Microsoft does for Windows, or Apple does for OSX), it makes it that much more difficult to overcome those problems. It's not impossible, though. It's just not something you should give up on if you really believe in it. If you give up, you guarantee it will never happen.

Typical ignorant forumite.

Mac OS is a professional's choice. It has the entire media, music production, video production and publishing market share. In the science, education and 3D cluster rendering segments they have over 60%.

Go visit Pixar sometime. You won't find a single windows PC. The massive advantage the Mac has is that what you see is what you get. TrueColor actually means something, you know. On MacOs, what you see on the screen (if the screen is TrueColor) is the same exact thing you will see on paper if you print it out or render it to video. Windows can't do this. Mac OS also has a simplified ordering system that makes the actual process of rendering much faster, along with other searching/calculating/compiling CPU processes.

It's said that a CPU running under Mac OS is 33% more efficient than one running under Windows. Unfortunately, running Windows on a Mac removes this advantage, with Windows being a spaghetti coded mess that will always have some form of DOS in the background and all.

For the most part, anything a Mac can do, a PC can do. The functions of a PC aren't really all that limited to the operating system, just the programs available for it. Macs just happen to come with a few extra artsy stuff built in, which Microsoft could do if they wanted, but the whole argument against them of promoting too many of their own products would kill that idea.

Also, using Pixar is an unfair example. Steve Jobs owns Pixar (owned technically, now that Disney owns it. He is still administering it's operations), of course they'd use the computers his other company makes.

Heh. No, not at all. Back in the old PPC days there was a grain of truth to that, they were better at crunching numbers than executing instructions, something that's great for graphics work, but since the switch to intel based processors there's literally no difference. The OS doesn't control how fast your processor processes instructions, that's not even a sensible thing to say. The colour thing was valid - 5 years ago. XP's colour support was rubbish, Vista fixed that. Cluster computing is overwhelmingly *nix based, yes - but not OS X, linux.

And, er, windows hasn't had a DOS backend since... Windows ME, I think? Certainly it wasn't there in XP.

Before you call people out on being ignorant, you should really make sure you don't suffer yourself. No OS makes a processor execute things faster - while a better task scheduler can make a big difference, for sure, pretty much every modern scheduler is highly efficient. OS X has an advantage in media areas partially because of better software (Final Cut is better than just about anything you'll find elsewhere, for example), partially because of inertia, and mostly because some people prefer it! Certainly not because it's somehow faster - that's all down to the software it's running, and ain't got [censored] to do with the OS.

No, you don't get it. The way a CPU is used is determined by the system using it. It's not that a CPU is faster because of the way Mac OS uses it, it's that it's slower because of the way Windows uses it.

A Mac OS instruction is very different from a Windows instruction.

Imagine your mother telling you to clean your room. An easy way to translate it to the lowest common denominator. If your mom is MacOS and you are the CPU, that's all you are told, she just checks it after you're done to make sure it's ok. If your mom is Windows, however, she'll be hanging over your sholder all the while your doing it, checking that every little detail is carried out to perfection, using more resources both from the software (your mom) and the hardware (you)

You don't have to understand it, hell, I'm not sure you even want to.

EDIT: And TrueColor is impossible to achieve on a Windows system, in case anyone doubted that.

That... that's not how it works at all. A CPU instruction is a physical thing, it's an actual circuit on the chip, you can't execute it differently, it simply isn't possible. I'm sorry, but inaccurate metaphors and flat out falsities do not make a very good point, OS X is a nice operating system, but it does that on its own merits, not through magic. And if you're seriously telling me that colour balance is impossible to alter on windows, then... well, like with the DOS thing, the "OS X is better for media" thing, the "OS X is 1/3rd faster" thing, and the "faster at rendering" thing, you'd be wrong. Neither OS has much of a technical advantage over the other any more, and it pretty much comes down to personal taste - why do you need more than that to legitimise your choices?

Instruction = scheduler

Don't pretend you didn't understand what I meant. God, some people are dense on purpose.

And you can get close to (or actually manage to get 100% true color) true color on Windows, although it is virtually impossible, but that is emulated through gamma control software like that which is supplied from Adobe or Nvidia, while in Mac OS, it is a plug and play thing.

You can't schedule an instruction to be faster. A single application executing is not going to be faster, every scheduler pretty much has that down these days. The only major breakthroughs these days are now running many, many things in parallel. Not singular applications, that's all down to the application.

As for true colour, because you can get it but because it's not first party it doesn't count? Seems strange, considering both are general-purpose operating systems designed to be able to run third party applications.

It's been quite some time since either OS has had a solid, factual, advantage over the other. Yes, they each have areas in which they beat the other, but in general it comes down to personal preference. So, I ask again, why is that not enough to justify your choice? Why do you feel the need to "call people out" with unfounded views and recycled facts that haven't been true for years? Since when was "Well, personally, I prefer X" not enough?

You don't need a custom built PC to enjoy Skyrim! If anything the minority in the PC market are those who built their own machine/have higher end models. But if you look at those who game with a normal, not modded and over priced up machine they still get satisfaction from the games they play.

If your one who complains that macs are to expensive, then get a job... If you are one that has built a supper PC than more power to you, but let me tell you, you are the 10% who do. The computer nerds! The ones trapped in a budget pit that doesn't really make a huge difference!

Most gaming enthusiasts use consoles. These gaming nerds have no need for PCs. But for college students (a lot of mac users) and the vast majority (which the mac appeals to, if people would realize they are not expensive compared to a machine that was built with the same TLC) the PC is the only techno companion we enjoy!

All I know is it make me sad to think that Gix will have to leave his Mac behind to play Skyrim. That's a damn shame.

And I'm a PC user, but I wouldn't be as much of one if developers remembered that the Mac exists. Just saying.

I was just watching him today, playing daggerfell !

Steve Jobs doest run Pixar anymore he stepped down to focus on Apple. And how is that unfair, hating on Apple is unfair...

Apples technology is by far the most advanced in the OS consumer market. Core Audio, Core Video, and Core Animation are the best of there class. Apple also dropped all of its old technology which Microsoft will find it very difficult to do. Windows is bloated and out of date, this leads to poor optimization and a lot of headaches when it comes to running efficiently...

Apple has introduced a huge amount of new technology that Microsoft still hasnt gotten out of prototype yet. Apple knows whats best for developers and consumers and that not [censored] code...

Microsoft has created a lot of horrible products. Windows Phone, Windows Games, Windows Media...

OpenGL has had tesilation for years, well before DX11 showcased it...

The only issue with OpenGL is Ram and a few other dodads... Apple has addressed this, by investing in OpenGL, adding 4 GB of 1333Hz RAM and 1 GB base video ram for the newer models.

This is supose to end the RAM gap between DX11 and OpenGL