> Gamers can enjoy incredibly smooth gameplay, with up to 2x higher frame rates5 than on iMac with M1.
What games do run on the Mac? Certainly, most AAA titles do not.
>Compared to the most popular 24-inch all-in-one PC with the latest Intel Core 7 processor, the new iMac is up to 4.5x faster.
You can build PCs there are more powerful than that Mac, cheaper. And you can easily repair them.
Nobody’s buying a Mac to game. The gaming is a bonus for a segment of their market, is why they mention it at all. Zero Mac sales are motivated primarily by gaming. “Does this do enough gaming, well enough, that I can avoid buying a Steamdeck, or that I can get rid of this bulky PC that I use only for gaming?” are things their prospective buyers might wonder, not “should I buy this if I want a gaming computer?” (No, obviously)
Examples: Cocoon, ufo50, Outer wilds, Harold Halibut, Noita
> “Does this do enough gaming, well enough, that I can avoid buying a Steamdeck, or that I can get rid of this bulky PC that I use only for gaming?”
I think the answer is "No". I'm writing this from a Mac. In the last year, so many games I've wanted to play while traveling, someone tells me about it, I go check it out, no mac version. I just have to wait until I get home.
Sometimes I get lucky, "A Short Hike", but more often than not there's no Mac version.
If you’re flexible on what you play, it might be fine for gaming. Like someone with a Switch might be like “eh, sure I’d like to play the new Assassins Creed, but not enough to get a PlayStation—my kids want the Switch, and I don’t want two consoles, so I’ll just find stuff to play on here instead.” I think that’s the market-segment they’re talking to when they write ad or marketing copy about Mac gaming capabilities.
Why would anyone buy a Porsche? You can buy an F-150 with a >1 ton payload capacity, fit 6 people in it and if you get the EV version it might be even faster than the base config Porsche.
The PC will take up a lot of space, use a lot more power, be loud and be look ugly. Some people might care about these things even if you don't.
> every app have its own updater
Well certainly not all due. But mainly because they are not part of the OS/distribution. And it's not like there arent any proprietary apps on Linux that have to be installed/updated independently.
Also you can use the App Store if you are so inclined. IMHO an awful experience but still better than the extremely laggy GUI app stores on Gnome/KDE.
I use Linux now and I'm much happier. It has weird bugs at times, but is overall both faster and much more polished.
* iTerm
* Outlook/Office (not available on Linux so I'll exclude this one)
* an app for being able to use different scroll directions across mouse and trackpad (I prefer natural scrolling on trackpad and the opposite on mouse, something that macOS strangely doesn't let you do)
* an app to set a flat acceleration profile on mouse (I strongly prefer no acceleration on mouse after years playing FPS games)
* an app to let me use my ultrawide monitor at full resolution and refresh rate -- this was a weird problem and I don't remember all the details, but the app did work in the end
* an app to cmd-tab by window rather than by app -- again, personal preference here but I strongly believe that there's no moral difference in switching between two Firefox windows versus between a Firefox and a Safari window
On Linux, the first is handled by my package manager, and the last four are built into KDE as settings.
On top of all of this I was using yabai, but updates to that were handled via Homebrew so that wasn't as bad. (I generally have lots of complaints about Homebrew though -- for example, if I ask it to install a binary, I want exactly that binary to be on my PATH. I don't want to use Homebrew's version of pkgconfig, LLVM etc as well. More recently, on Linux, I've switched to Nix for this which does the right thing.)
- BG3
- CIV
- Stardew Valley
- Football Manager
- Subnautica
- XCOM
- ARMA 3