Valve: "Mac is 5 times more stable than windows running games"

[lanux128]

Gabe Newell the boss-man of Valve claimed in a recent interview that "the Mac is 5 times more stable than windows running games." you can listen to the podcast here. it also has video and text-transcript at the same location. Valve/Steam must be trying to win over the Mac crowd.

[attach=#]

Source: http://www.bit-tech.net/blog/2010/05/26/steam-is-more-stable-on-mac-than-windows/

[Eóin]

It's probably buggy Windows versions of iTunes that are fscking up those 'unstable' PCs.

[wraith808]

5 times more stable?  Not 4 or 6?  Or maybe 4.997?  I hate statements that try to apply an obviously subjective number to a non-empirical statement.

[Carol Haynes]

As a general comment could this be due to the fact that windows has at 5000% more games available?

As to the specific comment about one game what does that prove? That the developers are better at writing Mac applications perhaps?

Most gaming issues seem to be related to graphics and antivirus issues (AIUI). I can't believe nVidia's crappy drivers are any better on the Mac than Windows (given that Windows has a much larger test environment) - and as for antivirus issues that probably falls down to Windows users forgetting to disable it and Mac users being too thick (or religiously affected) to install one!

[40hz]

Saint Mung throws back his head, laughs - and then posits the following koan :

"What is the sound of one face sucking up big time?"

All hail Eris! Shantih!

[JavaJones]

To be clear, they have test data from precisely 1 game - Portal. It's also a smaller sample size by far than their Windows install base. Make of that what you will.

Assuming it's true, which I don't necessarily dispute, it's not really shocking considering the tight control Apple exercises over its hardware. A ton of the Windows side machines that are being compared to are almost certainly either much older, or much lower spec/cost in hardware. The fairest comparison would be like-for-like hardware *and* cost. So let's say a $500 budget Winodws machine with cut rate hardware is comparable (Core 2 Duo or whatever) to a low-end iMac at $1000 or something. Still not a fair comparison because the iMac uses better brand hardware, with better drivers, etc. Let's compare a $1000 PC to a $1000 Mac and then we'll really see what the stability comparison is on the same *class* of system. That's the real key... Basically Mac comes out smelling like roses in this comparison because they don't *have* machines in the class of system that are likely causing most crashes.

- Oshyan

[Eóin]

+1 JavaJones

It's a nonsense comparison, like saying HiFi's are better for games than SatNav's. Compare like with like and then maybe you'll have something ever so slightly educated and informed to say.

[Darwin]

5 times more stable?  Not 4 or 6?  Or maybe 4.997?  I hate statements that try to apply an obviously subjective number to a non-empirical statement.

Exactly my thought - how the hell did they quantify this (hint: they didn't).