bit-gamer.net

Valve claims Steam is five times more stable on Mac

Posted on 26th May 2010 at 13:45 by Alex Watson with 74 comments

Alex Watson
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).

Valve claims Steam is five times more stable on Mac Valve claims Steam is five times more stable on PC than Mac

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 Reply
yakyb 26th May 2010, 14:57 Quote
as mentioned there are numerous reasons for this

including 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
barrkel 26th May 2010, 15:05 Quote
I can buy that quite easily, owing as yakyb says, to far less hardware variation and more strictly vetted drivers in a closed ecosystem.

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%.
Andy Mc 26th May 2010, 15:10 Quote
Steam is currently quite stable for me, esp. for Valve games. It's the 3rd party publishers (read IW) that are unstable for me.

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.
Tom @ CCL 26th May 2010, 15:12 Quote
Ill put it out in the open, for me Steam on OSX has been less stable than on Windows.

5 crashes in OSX, averaging one every couple of days against Windows which I cant remember the last time it crashed.
-=ice=- 26th May 2010, 15:22 Quote
While steam itself hasn't crashed on my mac, Portal died a coupe times before the patches...

Eaqually though, I've never had much issue on Windows, apart from when steam was new...
mclean007 26th May 2010, 15:24 Quote
Hey!! There's no shame in running on hope and duct tape!
adam_bagpuss 26th May 2010, 15:26 Quote
my steam has never crashed on windows 7 64-bit
mi1ez 26th May 2010, 15:27 Quote
Never had steam crash under windows. All those crashes will be overclockers pushing too hard as well as, as stated in the article, "bargain specials, cobbled together from third-hand hardware and running more on hope and duct tape than..." (PS. where IS the rest of that sentence...)
digitaldave 26th May 2010, 15:33 Quote
steam is still not 100% on mac, if you quit sometimes it has an error report shortly after, it works fine just that error report pops up after you quit now and then.

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
Tom @ CCL 26th May 2010, 15:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mi1ez
Never had steam crash under windows. All those crashes will be overclockers pushing too hard as well as, as stated in the article, "bargain specials, cobbled together from third-hand hardware and running more on hope and duct tape than..." (PS. where IS the rest of that sentence...)

Not had a single crash out of my overclocked machine since it was setup. :)
mi1ez 26th May 2010, 15:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom @ CCL
Quote:
Originally Posted by mi1ez
Never had steam crash under windows. All those crashes will be overclockers pushing too hard as well as, as stated in the article, "bargain specials, cobbled together from third-hand hardware and running more on hope and duct tape than..." (PS. where IS the rest of that sentence...)

Not had a single crash out of my overclocked machine since it was setup. :)

You evidently haven't puched too hard then! :P
Tom @ CCL 26th May 2010, 15:48 Quote
4.00GHz on a i7 920 (C0) in a Shuttle system.

Is pushing fairly hard with a GTX 295 in there!
lysaer 26th May 2010, 15:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mi1ez
Never had steam crash under windows. All those crashes will be overclockers pushing too hard as well as, as stated in the article, "bargain specials, cobbled together from third-hand hardware and running more on hope and duct tape than..." (PS. where IS the rest of that sentence...)

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
Mr T 26th May 2010, 16:05 Quote
How much are you betting all the mac fanboys stop reading after the title?
sakzzz 26th May 2010, 16:14 Quote
Playing TF2 on my comp since 2 yrs.... never crashed once...
.
Started acting cranky only after the recent update.....
.
This comparison at this stage is absolutely unnecessary...
Evildead666 26th May 2010, 16:51 Quote
I don't think i've EVER had steam crash, and its been a long while....
pbryanw 26th May 2010, 17:21 Quote
No, another one who's not had Steam crash, either on Mac (Hackintosh) or PC (Win 7). Also, looking forward to the Mac Hardware Survey - I wonder how many other Hackintosh users are out there (like me), and whether we represent a sizeable minority?
Jamie 26th May 2010, 17:32 Quote
Well Steam just crashed on me whilst it was sat doing nothing on my Macbook Pro. It's never crashed on my PC.
rickysio 26th May 2010, 17:33 Quote
By the looks of the comments, Gabe Newell seems to be reading the wrong report.
ZERO <ibis> 26th May 2010, 18:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom @ CCL
Ill put it out in the open, for me Steam on OSX has been less stable than on Windows.

5 crashes in OSX, averaging one every couple of days against Windows which I cant remember the last time it crashed.

They are talking about portal, not steam.
pendragon 26th May 2010, 18:51 Quote
good article, Alex. I appreciate how you broke down the caveats to the claim.
shomann 26th May 2010, 18:59 Quote
Just another Windows/Mac argument ;)

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 ;)
theevilelephant 26th May 2010, 19:11 Quote
You mean both people who played portal for 10 minutes on the mac haven't had a crash yet?

Only kidding, it makes sense, stricter control of hardware and all that jazz.

Would be interesting to see some actual numbers/data.
FelixTech 26th May 2010, 19:22 Quote
Portal doesn't crash anyway. Get a load of Mac users playing L4D2 and the crashes will come rolling in :P
Omnituens 26th May 2010, 19:57 Quote
Title of blog is misleading - Steam isn't in question here, its the Source engine.
Guinevere 26th May 2010, 20:21 Quote
I'd love to see the stats split up by Windows OS and driver revision.

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.
HourBeforeDawn 26th May 2010, 20:24 Quote
5 times more stable with 5 times less content, huh that fits right in line with the whole Mac OS is more stable which is a duh remark as it has no were near the amount of content that windows has to support. Ehh whatever I took a look at what the Mac Steam has to offer and its pretty well sad overall.
cgthomas 26th May 2010, 20:29 Quote
looks like a PR stunt from Valve.
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
cgthomas 26th May 2010, 20:30 Quote
If there's a crash then it's Valve's shitty patches
Pete J 26th May 2010, 21:00 Quote
5 times more stable? How do they calculate that?

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.
Simnol 26th May 2010, 21:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr T
How much are you betting all the mac fanboys stop reading after the title?

That entirely depends on how much you want to lose ;)
cgthomas 26th May 2010, 21:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simnol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr T
How much are you betting all the mac fanboys stop reading after the title?

That entirely depends on how much you want to lose ;)

Clear..... Title and somewhere in the middle
bob 26th May 2010, 21:25 Quote
Well mac users usually like to talk about how much better os x is than windows, so they see this, download steam to prove a point, and valve have another potential customer. Sorted.
lysaer 26th May 2010, 21:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by shomann
Just another Windows/Mac argument ;)

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 ;)

let me resolve that argument!

http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/song-chart-memes-apple-compatibility.jpg
Kaihekoa 26th May 2010, 21:34 Quote
I'm a bit perplexed as to why Steam would even make a negative statement regarding PCs since that is their most profitable platform. Maybe Mac users are so enthralled about getting games from Steam they are producing more profit per capita. Nonetheless, it is highly illogical to conclude that Macs are five times more stable than PCs given the following conditions:

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.
Simnol 26th May 2010, 21:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgthomas
Clear..... Title and somewhere in the middle

Meh, read the whole thing, and I am a Mac fanboy :)
CozaMcCoza 26th May 2010, 21:38 Quote
I've never had Steam crash on me on Vista. I don't see how it could possibly have 2, let alone 5 times, more stability at a 100% stability record
Simnol 26th May 2010, 21:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
let me resolve that argument!

http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/song-chart-memes-apple-compatibility.jpg

HA! I like the Alien ships comment, could be a reference to Rodney McKays love of Macs on Stargate Atlantis?
Hamish 26th May 2010, 22:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simnol
HA! I like the Alien ships comment, could be a reference to Rodney McKays love of Macs on Stargate Atlantis?

independence day reference ;)
Simnol 26th May 2010, 22:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish
independence day reference ;)

Hmm never seen it, should watch it at some point.
StoneyMahoney 26th May 2010, 23:50 Quote
Windows has DirectX. OS X only has OpenGL and is built out of hardware designed for DirectX over OpenGL. End of gaming argument.

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].
rickysio 27th May 2010, 02:46 Quote
Simnol 27th May 2010, 03:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3726/quick-look-mac-os-x-portal-performance

Look at the FPS chart. Mac = pwned.

Is it wrong to want to see one not on a hackintosh with forceware?
rickysio 27th May 2010, 12:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simnol
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3726/quick-look-mac-os-x-portal-performance

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.
JagFel 27th May 2010, 14:18 Quote
Given someone was trying to run Portal under Windows 2000 recently,

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.
kylew 27th May 2010, 15:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaihekoa
I'm a bit perplexed as to why Steam would even make a negative statement regarding PCs since that is their most profitable platform. Maybe Mac users are so enthralled about getting games from Steam they are producing more profit per capita. Nonetheless, it is highly illogical to conclude that Macs are five times more stable than PCs given the following conditions:

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.

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.
Pieface 27th May 2010, 15:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3726/quick-look-mac-os-x-portal-performance

Look at the FPS chart. Mac = pwned.

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?
kylew 27th May 2010, 15:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
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.
Tom @ CCL 27th May 2010, 15:26 Quote
Will be the driver maturity between the two operating systems.

Until now why would anyone spend any money making drivers optimised for Portal when it didnt work on the mac?
Volund 27th May 2010, 15:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew

3)Again, they're talking about portal.

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...
rickysio 27th May 2010, 15:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3726/quick-look-mac-os-x-portal-performance

Look at the FPS chart. Mac = pwned.

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?

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
smc8788 27th May 2010, 16:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
even though isn't it 30fps is the maximum your eye can notice or something?

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.
dyzophoria 27th May 2010, 18:06 Quote
lol, I wonder what valve made as a basis for this?, OSX installed with alot of stuff is just as stable (or unstable) as windows installed with the same(or similar) programs running on the background. ive seen alot of crashes on OSX based on how I use it (think of it as not like a mac user only staring at the screen just because of awe on the expensive non-windows machine infront of him). if you use a mac the same as you use windows I think stability wise it will be the same
Chocobollz 27th May 2010, 18:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
even though isn't it 30fps is the maximum your eye can notice or something?

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 :-)
smc8788 27th May 2010, 18:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chocobollz
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.
Shagbag 27th May 2010, 19:06 Quote
An interesting article. While it's too early to call, if Valve's product range grows rapidly, we may well be saying in 2-5 years time: "if you're a gamer, you're better off without Windows".

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.
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 27th May 2010, 21:40 Quote
My Steam crashes running...
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.
shomann 27th May 2010, 21:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
My Steam crashes running...
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!
Pete J 27th May 2010, 22:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ab$olut
Image
+Rep to you sir!
Star*Dagger 27th May 2010, 22:30 Quote
Laughing at all the woe and lamentation here.
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!
eddtox 28th May 2010, 00:14 Quote
Meh - consoles, tvs and dvd players also crash less than (some) windows machines - doesn't really say much. Windows caters to a much wider range of users, hardware configurations and applications, therefore it has many more possible points of failure. If apple had to cater to half of the different permutations windows caters to, it would probably be unusable.

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.
Pete J 28th May 2010, 07:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
As far as people who do not understand math(s) and statistics, report to your local college.
Well I DO understand, and this is why I ask.
rickysio 28th May 2010, 16:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
Laughing at all the woe and lamentation here.
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!

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?
Pieface 28th May 2010, 20:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
Laughing at all the woe and lamentation here.
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!

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.
eddtox 29th May 2010, 10:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
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.
lysaer 29th May 2010, 15:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
Laughing at all the woe and lamentation here.
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 has to be a troll post lol, i can't believe anyone is that ignorant.
TheTourist 29th May 2010, 21:08 Quote
As far as I'm concerned this is nothing to do with the whole Mac vs PC argument, in this case the Mac is for all intents and purposes a "console". A console in that as opposed to the PC, the hardware and software is locked down to a discrete set of configurations, and you don't have the same potential problems as you do with a PC (poorly put together machines, over-ambitious overclocks, cheap and unreliable componentry etc)...

So in other news, a console is more reliable than a PC for gaming. Shocking!
riggs 30th May 2010, 00:02 Quote
While it's not crashed while I've actually been playing, it seems to 'quit unexpectedly' whenever I close it (cmd + q). Ok, so I'm closing it anyway, but why does it keep crashing?

Anyhoo, it's been fine other than that...just a shame that the performance is bloody rubbish compared to a similar specced PC.
deadlyavenger 30th May 2010, 12:51 Quote
More money for Valve can only be a good thing right? Allowing them to pump out more quality games and allowing more money for developers if they make their games for both mac & pc (with all the distribution being handled via steam).

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).
Hamish 30th May 2010, 18:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by riggs
While it's not crashed while I've actually been playing, it seems to 'quit unexpectedly' whenever I close it (cmd + q). Ok, so I'm closing it anyway, but why does it keep crashing?

Anyhoo, it's been fine other than that...just a shame that the performance is bloody rubbish compared to a similar specced PC.

source used to do this on windows (vista/7) for ages too :p
GMX09 30th May 2010, 19:38 Quote
I've played countless Steam games on my PC and not one of them has crashed, ever. I played Portal on a friends Mac the other day and it crashed within the first 20 minutes of playing. It was also extremely difficult to handle with the wireless mouse. :/

I guess it depends on the user.
harveypooka 5th June 2010, 12:42 Quote
The client crashes regularly on Mac OS X 10.6, much more than on Windows 7.
RedDevil 26th August 2010, 09:18 Quote
What do you expect when all macs have set hardware? The story would be different if OSX was free to use on any hardware other then Apple's with thousands of possible hardware/driver configurations. I am pretty sure If this was the case OSX and steam running on OSX would not be as stable as people are lead to believe.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums
Elite Dangerous Review

Elite Dangerous Review

22nd December 2014

The Talos Principle Review

The Talos Principle Review

16th December 2014