Valve claims Steam is five times more stable on Mac
Posted on 26th May 2010 at 13:45 by Alex Watson with 74 comments
Now I have to be careful handling this claim, because it's dangerous stuff - we're talking weapons grade flamebait here. We're way past UN inspectors; if Dubya was still president, I'd be looking for a cave to hide in and thinking every shadow in the sky was a fleet of Apaches coming to blow me to kingdom come.
Valve, PC gaming's last, best hope, recently made the claim that for its software, "the Mac is five times more stable than Windows," in terms of minutes played versus number of crashes.
It's not just some Valve underling saying this, either - it's Gabe Newell himself, in a US podcast called The Conversation.
It's a good headline, but there are plenty of caveats to it. Firstly, he's just talking about Portal. Secondly, a much larger number of gamers are playing on the PC, and it's debatable as to whether the number of crashes stays at a constant percentage as the sample size grows.
Of course, you can argue that as long as you have a respectable sample size on the Mac side of things then the numbers are still comparable. Valve is, as ever, being secretive over absolute numbers, but it has said that in the first week, 11 per cent of Steam purchases were made on the Mac (though that's quite different from number of clients playing, and you'd expect a hefty spike in the launch week. It will be interesting to see how much detail we get about the Mac in Steam's regular Hardware Survey).
Newell talks about how having to deal with one hardware super-vendor which provides all the drivers in the shape of Apple makes Valve's life easier - and there's also the fact Apple ships a very limited number of hardware configurations, too. Indeed; my main issue with Newell's statement is that in framing the issue as "Windows versus Mac", all PCs are lumped together as equal and the statement implies that Windows itself is inherently less stable than Mac OS X. In reality, what Valve is saying is that there are more unstable machines running Windows than unstable machines running OS X machines, which is a subtly different but important distinction.
The freedom for anyone, from individual hardware enthusiasts to small high street companies to big SIs such as Dell, to build a Windows PC results in a huge variety of machines, some of which are just not very good. Some of which are bargain specials, cobbled together from third-hand hardware and running on not much more than hope and duct tape. There is virtually no quality control. But that's the Windows model.
Cut the Windows sample down to "PCs built by a decent firm" or "PCs built by enthusiasts" and it would be interesting to see the crash rate stats.
And of course, there's advantage of the diversity of the PC: on comparable systems, Windows is significantly faster than OS X in OpenGL, as these tests at Phoronix show.
Flamebait aside, Newell's on good form in the show, and makes some interesting points in terms of how he sees gaming developing - with the advantage going to those who can create better customer experiences rather than those that simply master raw technology, and the episode is well worth a listen.
Still, while it's a good podcast, I should of course remind you it's clearly not as good at the bit-tech and Custom PC podcast.
Previously: Valve looking to OpenGL means Microsoft should be worried.
via ArsTechnica.
Valve, PC gaming's last, best hope, recently made the claim that for its software, "the Mac is five times more stable than Windows," in terms of minutes played versus number of crashes.
It's not just some Valve underling saying this, either - it's Gabe Newell himself, in a US podcast called The Conversation.
It's a good headline, but there are plenty of caveats to it. Firstly, he's just talking about Portal. Secondly, a much larger number of gamers are playing on the PC, and it's debatable as to whether the number of crashes stays at a constant percentage as the sample size grows.
Of course, you can argue that as long as you have a respectable sample size on the Mac side of things then the numbers are still comparable. Valve is, as ever, being secretive over absolute numbers, but it has said that in the first week, 11 per cent of Steam purchases were made on the Mac (though that's quite different from number of clients playing, and you'd expect a hefty spike in the launch week. It will be interesting to see how much detail we get about the Mac in Steam's regular Hardware Survey).
Newell talks about how having to deal with one hardware super-vendor which provides all the drivers in the shape of Apple makes Valve's life easier - and there's also the fact Apple ships a very limited number of hardware configurations, too. Indeed; my main issue with Newell's statement is that in framing the issue as "Windows versus Mac", all PCs are lumped together as equal and the statement implies that Windows itself is inherently less stable than Mac OS X. In reality, what Valve is saying is that there are more unstable machines running Windows than unstable machines running OS X machines, which is a subtly different but important distinction.
The freedom for anyone, from individual hardware enthusiasts to small high street companies to big SIs such as Dell, to build a Windows PC results in a huge variety of machines, some of which are just not very good. Some of which are bargain specials, cobbled together from third-hand hardware and running on not much more than hope and duct tape. There is virtually no quality control. But that's the Windows model.
Cut the Windows sample down to "PCs built by a decent firm" or "PCs built by enthusiasts" and it would be interesting to see the crash rate stats.
And of course, there's advantage of the diversity of the PC: on comparable systems, Windows is significantly faster than OS X in OpenGL, as these tests at Phoronix show.
Flamebait aside, Newell's on good form in the show, and makes some interesting points in terms of how he sees gaming developing - with the advantage going to those who can create better customer experiences rather than those that simply master raw technology, and the episode is well worth a listen.
Still, while it's a good podcast, I should of course remind you it's clearly not as good at the bit-tech and Custom PC podcast.
Previously: Valve looking to OpenGL means Microsoft should be worried.
via ArsTechnica.
74 Comments
Discuss in the forums Replyincluding the strict limitation of hardware that most macs have
besides i havnt had it crash once 5 times more stable than 0 is still 0
lest we forget that the performance is also a lot worse
Absolute numbers also matter though. 5x is a more serious issue if it's e.g. 10% vs 50% than if it's 0.01% vs 0.05%.
Could this be the start of Valve reducing it's PC releases in favour of Macs? It certainly would open them up to become the dominant force in Mac gaming if they did and possibly encourage other developers to look to port/develop for Macs too.
5 crashes in OSX, averaging one every couple of days against Windows which I cant remember the last time it crashed.
Eaqually though, I've never had much issue on Windows, apart from when steam was new...
still it was the only thing i missed about windoze, i dont think i will ever have a windoze machine ever again.
just need them to release tf2 and we are laughing . . . . or at least css
Not had a single crash out of my overclocked machine since it was setup. :)
You evidently haven't puched too hard then! :P
Is pushing fairly hard with a GTX 295 in there!
never had steam crash on me ever 4.3 i7 965 on water 1100mhz 3x 5870 and currently on my 3 480's no issues at all
.
Started acting cranky only after the recent update.....
.
This comparison at this stage is absolutely unnecessary...
They are talking about portal, not steam.
That said, I have run Steam a HELL of a lot longer on Windows (XP and 7) than I have the Mac and have had very little in the way of program instability (network stability, on the other hand...).
All I know is that I can play Killing Floor on my new MBP without switching to Windows right now ;)
Only kidding, it makes sense, stricter control of hardware and all that jazz.
Would be interesting to see some actual numbers/data.
I'd put my money on saying that on a geforce system (same as OSX) and using a patched Win7 with latest stable GPU drivers from windows update, that there won't be any difference between macs and PCs
On a mac 99.9% of people (including me) just take the updates from Apple as they come, but on a PC you've got a bucket of flavours of OS across XP, Vista & Win7 and everyone and their dog is installing a different driver revision. Some from the CD, some from update, some direct, some beta etc etc.
So yes, of course an average mac is going to be more stable than an average PC.
Doesn't say that a Mac is more stable than a PC though. I've had a couple of lockups on my macbook pro, but I've NEVER had a crash or lockup on Windows7.
But I'll still say the average mac is more stable than the average PC, it's just my lovely i7 isn't average ;) And neither are any of us here at BT, we're geeks - of course we'll get our PCs stable.
But an average Mac is a £900+ system whilst the average PC is £600 machine.
You can't compare a Mac to PC
Unless you compare a Mac to a PC that you can buy for the price of that Mac model. In that case the PC is by far a winner imho
Anyway, say I drive two cars: A Ferrari F40 and a Smart Car. I'm much more likely to crash in the F40 - but which one would I choose to drive? :)
And yes, I realise there's a whole load of ways you can actually say the F40's less likely to crash.
That entirely depends on how much you want to lose ;)
Clear..... Title and somewhere in the middle
let me resolve that argument!
http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/song-chart-memes-apple-compatibility.jpg
1) They have two weeks of experience running Steam on a Mac versus seven years on the PC.
2) There is a colossal disparity between the number of games than run on Mac versus Windows.
3) The sample set of this stability claim is based on games that were new on the PC years ago meaning many bugs were fixed prior to their Mac release.
4) Given the compatibility problems of different versions of Windows, the huge range of PC hardware, and greater number of PC users there will inherently be more problems compared to a Mac.
These are very simple concepts that must be considered when making this type of evaluation. While it's great Mac users are gaining access to computer games via Steam one should not get carried away when making a comparison Personally this seems like a poorly conceived PR move to counter the bad press about the Mac's performance and image quality in Portal versus Windows a week or so ago.
Meh, read the whole thing, and I am a Mac fanboy :)
HA! I like the Alien ships comment, could be a reference to Rodney McKays love of Macs on Stargate Atlantis?
independence day reference ;)
Hmm never seen it, should watch it at some point.
OS X is more stable out of the box, but adding 3rd party hardware is just as much of a stability-crushing opportunity as for Windows.
The bottom line - Windows is just as stable as Mac OS when it's configured right, on top of which it's got the performance edge. Windows = gaming win. True, Macs have a lot of other stuff going for them (Mac Mini = HTPC perfection), but they sure don't cut it when you're talking FPS in [INSERT GAME HERE].
Look at the FPS chart. Mac = pwned.
Is it wrong to want to see one not on a hackintosh with forceware?
An official Mac would cost twice that of a comparable Hackintosh.
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1271603&highlight=portal+windows+2000
I'd really like to know what data Valve's using for this comparison.
A none-positive comment doesn't make it a negative comment. I don't really see this as an "attack" on PCs. It's just a developer talking about their experiences, it's something new to them, and with it being on apple computers, with their hardware lockdown, they can probably get stuff done quicker. Also, I think people are reading it in to it a bit much, Not Macs, but Portal.
1) Come on, don't be ignorant, do you really think they have 2 weeks experience running on Macs? This will have been in progress for a long time.
2) Clearly, however they're talking about Portal only.
3)Again, they're talking about portal.
4)I don't think anyone thinks anything differently.
Dastardly, who can play with all the freezing 62.3 fps a second gives, even though isn't it 30fps is the maximum your eye can notice or something?
Definitely not.
While portal is perfectly playable (and I know I wouldn't be complaining about that performance) it's a good point to show how the same hardware fares between windows and macs when it comes to games.
I expected there to be a performance difference, but not such a large one as Anandtech shown.
Until now why would anyone spend any money making drivers optimised for Portal when it didnt work on the mac?
Yes, a game that was released on PC Windows nearly three years ago, meaning that, as is the custom now, it was released in a slightly buggy, more easily crashed form. The OSX version had the advantage of receiving a completely patched, ready-to-go game, which has matured to the point of running perfectly on most systems.
In other words, the OSX version didn't suffer from the initial period that we have to suffer through as gamers... you know, being used as testing guinea pigs...
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
No, 60FPS is the maximum the human eye can see on most LCD monitors because that's how many times the image on the screen is refreshed every second. On monitors with higher refresh rates, you will be able to see higher FPS.
No, that's only if if you have VSync enabled. The framerate is independent to the monitor's refresh rate. IMO, the comfortable framerate for our eyes (at least for mine) is approx. 85 Hz. And that's why I still use my CRT monitor for gaming, because I can crank its refresh rate and resolutions to whatever I like :-)
Yes, but was my understanding that even if you had a framerate of 200FPS in a game, on a 60Hz monitor you would only see 60 of them.
That would be good news - as long as it leads to increased competition between platforms. The last thing we want is to be reliant on a single, dominant platform (OSX or Win) pushing its own APIs with little incentive - due to its dominance - to enrich them for the benefit of the consumer.
More competition = consumer wins. Monopolies = consumer loses.
Windows xp 0
Windows 7 32 bit 0
Windows 7 64 bit 0
Hackintosh OSX 2
It should run more stable on a MAc as MACs don't do sh!t but as you can see Microsoft 0 Mac 2 nuff said.
No, not enough said. Use a Mac, not a Hackintosh, which by definition and name has been hacked.
That said, I still stand by my earlier comments. There hasn't been enough time that Mac Steam has been around to make a huge jump in the stability argument. I am just glad its available!
If Gabe says 5 times, it IS five times, he has no reason to lie. As far as people who do not understand math(s) and statistics, report to your local college.
Additionally, if you are running XP, you are wrong.
Between Valve and OnLive is 60% of the future of PC gaming.
All hail the Newell!
All hail Steam, bringer of games!
This is coming from someone who bought a second hand windows pc or £150 two years ago and is still running it. The 2005 compaq sr1629uk is on 24/7 and I can't remember the last time I did a restart or experienced a crash, even though it was a mid to low-end machine even in 2005.
So if he says that the DX11 game you're tremendously fond of sucks (can't remember the name - forgettable game!), it's the truth? Since he has no reason to lie?
Why would he lie about statistics? I think you're getting statistics mixed up with Opinion.
My dear man, if you think statistics don't lie, you need to go back to college.
This has to be a troll post lol, i can't believe anyone is that ignorant.
So in other news, a console is more reliable than a PC for gaming. Shocking!
Anyhoo, it's been fine other than that...just a shame that the performance is bloody rubbish compared to a similar specced PC.
As for the stability claims - limited hardware choice is what I'd boil it down to.
Valve have been making the steam platform for a long time, I'd imagine there'd be teething problems, but the crashes they're having on macs are likely to be problems with the port, not problems with steam itself (as all of those issues are likely to be fixed on the windows version).
source used to do this on windows (vista/7) for ages too :p
I guess it depends on the user.