Mac IS more stable

[MenInBlu]

n other Mac news, we're getting ready to add Mac numbers to our hardware survey. As longtime Steam customers are aware, our Steam Hardware Survey has become an industry benchmark for gauging what kinds of computers gamers are running around the world. We are in the process of updating this monthly report with Mac information and other new aggregate data. Here's a sneak peak at some of the preliminary findings we've gathered about Mac hardware since we launched on that platform just over a week ago:

- Roughly two thirds of all Steam Mac users are running on a laptop.
- Portal (with the same code base across platforms) is one fifth as likely to crash on a Mac than on Windows.
- And one week after launch, already more than eleven percent of all Steam purchases are for the Mac.

doesnt crash :cool:

[GangztaX]

So it might be more stable, but is it more powerful ?
That's what I thought.

[MenInBlu]

So it might be more stable, but is it more powerful ?
That's what I thought.

There are powerful macs, but they are a crapload more expensive then self built machines with the same specs.

however, would you rather have a pretty game that crashes when you are doing well, or a slightly crappier looking game that doesnt crash, and you can have fun forever

[Fuzz Bucket]

Nice.
I like the laptop statistic, too. XD

[Aura891]

Yes, the amount of people using steam on a mac are higher right now then they probably ever will be in the future, why? Everyone who owns steam and a mac went, HEY! lets see how well it'll work! and then what happens next? they go back to their PC, because it is able to access all of their games, not only a fraction

[Camm]

Mac users are a smaller install base than PC users, hence forth the crashing statistic can't be seen as linear, its logarithmic.

Basically; smaller sample size doesn't equal equal stats

[Fuzz Bucket]

Mac users are a smaller install base than PC users, hence forth the crashing statistic can't be seen as linear, its logarithmic.

Basically; smaller sample size doesn't equal equal stats
....?

[Aura891]

....?

what he says makes sense

[Scared]

If Steam crashes on 10% of all computers (random stat) and you had 2 sample groups, one being made up of 10 million people and another made up of 100 people, there are going to be less people crashing in the smaller group.

[gentlem]

....?

It's like if you ask your friend does he like Mac or PC. If he likes Mac over PC then you can't say that everyone likes Mac as he is not everyone. Larger sample size = more/better results. Since there are way more PC players than Mac players, vALVE can't come to a real conclusion about all of this (whatever *this* is)...

... Am I doing it right?

[Fuzz Bucket]

what he says makes sense
The ratio is what is important, not the number of effected machines.

[Aura891]

The ratio is what is important, not the number of effected machines.

K

25% of all People use a Mac (random number i pulled out of nowhere)

2 people were asked what they use

they both said PC

100% of people use a PC?

Hm.....................

[xMr.Orangex]

K

25% of all People use a Mac (random number i pulled out of nowhere)

2 people were asked what they use

they both said PC

100% of people use a PC?

Hm.....................

Well here's the deal, PC has for a long time been the dominant PC provider. Mac was almost out the door before they struck gold with their iPod. Now, Mac is getting more and more praise and is getting well liked.

PC has been used in Offices, Schools, Workplaces, etc, so more people are more comfortable with PC just because that's what they work for. Plus, for a while, files, programs and other needs were only for PC, and Mac was useless. With Mac developing more software (like Microsoft Word, Bootcamp, convertable programs) Mac is getting stronger and getting more even with PC. I think later down the road as generations change, I think you'll see a more even competition. For years, people have put a label on the mac, calling it an "art" computer, only "artists" use them. Now, I think it's way past that point. I think it's stronger, and it continues to get stronger.

I think if it were the other way around, mac being more common, then you would see more people wanting Mac over PC.

[jimmysmitty]

Well here's the deal, PC has for a long time been the dominant PC provider. Mac was almost out the door before they struck gold with their iPod. Now, Mac is getting more and more praise and is getting well liked.

PC has been used in Offices, Schools, Workplaces, etc, so more people are more comfortable with PC just because that's what they work for. Plus, for a while, files, programs and other needs were only for PC, and Mac was useless. With Mac developing more software (like Microsoft Word, Bootcamp, convertable programs) Mac is getting stronger and getting more even with PC. I think later down the road as generations change, I think you'll see a more even competition. For years, people have put a label on the mac, calling it an "art" computer, only "artists" use them. Now, I think it's way past that point. I think it's stronger, and it continues to get stronger.

I think if it were the other way around, mac being more common, then you would see more people wanting Mac over PC.

Sorry but not in this case. And Apple almost died because they booted Steve Jobs and let the Pepsi CEO stay who was an idiot. In fact Microsoft invested into Apple to save them and owns a large chunk of Apple shares, got Steve Jobs back in who saved Apple.

And people may only see praise for Mac but thats because they cover up anything bad by deleting forum posts or anything like that. It was even in a THG article.

PC is not mainly a "business" machine. Its used heavily in the design, medical and art world since its easily customizeable. Add gaming and bam.

And IF Mac becomes that popular, I gurantee that they will have problems and viruses up the ying yang. Most virues are created by the anti-virus companies and they want your money.

As for Portal, yea have NEVER had it crash and I have played it on XP, Vista and 7 for a total of 50+ hours.

[Cybik]

Look, I'm sure Valve is aware of how to conduct proper research. You are all assuming they didn't adjust it for the sample sizes. Everyone can admit Macs are more stable in general due to the proprietary, albeit less powerful, hardware compared to the mix and match custom hardware in Windows machines.

[Aura891]

Well here's the deal, PC has for a long time been the dominant PC provider. Mac was almost out the door before they struck gold with their iPod. Now, Mac is getting more and more praise and is getting well liked.

PC has been used in Offices, Schools, Workplaces, etc, so more people are more comfortable with PC just because that's what they work for. Plus, for a while, files, programs and other needs were only for PC, and Mac was useless. With Mac developing more software (like Microsoft Word, Bootcamp, convertable programs) Mac is getting stronger and getting more even with PC. I think later down the road as generations change, I think you'll see a more even competition. For years, people have put a label on the mac, calling it an "art" computer, only "artists" use them. Now, I think it's way past that point. I think it's stronger, and it continues to get stronger.

I think if it were the other way around, mac being more common, then you would see more people wanting Mac over PC.

....you completely derailed what i was talking about considering the fact that what i was stating had nothing to do with PC vs Mac in how many people use them it was just an example for the question that was asked and etc.

[xMr.Orangex]

Sorry but not in this case. And Apple almost died because they booted Steve Jobs and let the Pepsi CEO stay who was an idiot. In fact Microsoft invested into Apple to save them and owns a large chunk of Apple shares, got Steve Jobs back in who saved Apple.

And people may only see praise for Mac but thats because they cover up anything bad by deleting forum posts or anything like that. It was even in a THG article.

PC is not mainly a "business" machine. Its used heavily in the design, medical and art world since its easily customizeable. Add gaming and bam.

And IF Mac becomes that popular, I gurantee that they will have problems and viruses up the ying yang. Most virues are created by the anti-virus companies and they want your money.

As for Portal, yea have NEVER had it crash and I have played it on XP, Vista and 7 for a total of 50+ hours.

Yeah, that was bizarre and stupid when Apple hired that Pepsi CEO (Soda with Computers? That's like Ebay with Government).

I do know that Mac is not well liked by others, but that's common in competition. More people will pick PC over Mac, same with others who would pick Mac over PC. And yes, PC for the longest time, like i said, offered more than Mac. Because more companies saw more of a future with PC, while Apple was losing ground.

That's why more companies bought PC, and why work places work with PC. PC is, and probably still for a while, will still be the PC provider. It does to a lot more than Mac (much towards software making and code processing). Mac does things PC can't either, so it works both ways. For me, I have both, fortunately. I like my Mac better, but my PC doesn't go to waste (my Vista did, though). But sure, like everything else, it will have problems. PC has had problems, and so will Mac. Mac already has problems, but it's less common. As far as adding factor, Apple doesn't really offer a whole lot, maybe because they feel their computers are well fitted so you don't have to upgrade or change.

As for Steam and games, Mac didn't have any. Sure, there were games, but not like PC. With Steam coming to play, I think it's only going to get more strong. As far as playability, Steam has been on PC for about 7 years, so of course Portal will run smoothly without problems. With native programming and only been in use for a week, Valve did a heck of a job putting Portal (and future games) on Mac. Believe me, by 2011, Steam will be running smoothly with a strong library.

[xMr.Orangex]

Sorry but not in this case. And Apple almost died because they booted Steve Jobs and let the Pepsi CEO stay who was an idiot. In fact Microsoft invested into Apple to save them and owns a large chunk of Apple shares, got Steve Jobs back in who saved Apple.

And people may only see praise for Mac but thats because they cover up anything bad by deleting forum posts or anything like that. It was even in a THG article.

PC is not mainly a "business" machine. Its used heavily in the design, medical and art world since its easily customizeable. Add gaming and bam.

And IF Mac becomes that popular, I gurantee that they will have problems and viruses up the ying yang. Most virues are created by the anti-virus companies and they want your money.

As for Portal, yea have NEVER had it crash and I have played it on XP, Vista and 7 for a total of 50+ hours.

....you completely derailed what i was talking about considering the fact that what i was stating had nothing to do with PC vs Mac in how many people use them it was just an example for the question that was asked and etc.

I was just talking, using your quote for no reason...but yeah, thanks.

[ToMeRoN]

About the statistics argument, you're both right and wrong.

When you compare an extremely large population against an extremely small population (1 million vs 100 people) then YES, chances are the statistics won't be right.
In fact, the bigger the difference between the 2 populations, the bigger the chances that the results will be wrong. The "optimal" ratio is, of course, 1:1.

However, this isn't the case here, because you're not comparing 1 million against 100. I'm not sure exactly how many people currently play Steam on their Mac, but I'm sure it's in the tens of thousands AT LEAST. and 1 million vs X0,000 is actually a pretty accurate calculation (I should also note that when both sides are bigger it doesn't really matter anymore, for example 500,000 against 100,000 will probably give the same results as 1 million vs 100,000)

[Shifty Gray]

About the statistics argument, you're both right and wrong.

When you compare an extremely large population against an extremely small population (1 million vs 100 people) then YES, chances are the statistics won't be right.
In fact, the bigger the difference between the 2 populations, the bigger the chances that the results will be wrong. The "optimal" ratio is, of course, 1:1.

However, this isn't the case here, because you're not comparing 1 million against 100. I'm not sure exactly how many people currently play Steam on their Mac, but I'm sure it's in the tens of thousands AT LEAST. and 1 million vs X0,000 is actually a pretty accurate calculation (I should also note that when both sides are bigger it doesn't really matter anymore, for example 500,000 against 100,000 will probably give the same results as 1 million vs 100,000)

What he said. After a while it doesn't matter much anymore that you increase the sample size. Each increase will only have a near-insignificant improvement in reliability.

[DrLex]

Mac users are a smaller install base than PC users, hence forth the crashing statistic can't be seen as linear, its logarithmic.

Basically; smaller sample size doesn't equal equal stats

You seem to make the assumption that Valve just divided the number of crashing Macs by the number of crashing PCs to arrive at that that “one fifth” measure. I know many reports in the news contain such kind of flawed reasoning, but I don't expect Valve to make such mistakes.

“Portal ... is one fifth as likely to crash on a Mac than on Windows”, means that the likelihood of Portal crashing in the Mac Portal-playing population is 1/5th the likelihood of Portal crashing in the Windows Portal-playing population. In other words, if 100 people run Portal on a Windows PC and 5 of them crash on average, then if 100 people run Portal on a Mac, 1 of them crash on average. As others have said, the sizes of both populations should be large enough to claim this with a reasonable level of confidence.

[imacken]

Some of you guys ought to look at a basic Statistics course.
You don't need big sample rates to get accurate projections. It's about the nature of the sample not the size.
How many people do you think are sampled to get National figures like voting intentions, or TV viewing figures? Not many.

[tbone2709]

I have to call BS on this. My steam crashed loads yesterday, and now it claims all my games are uninstalled when my hard disk space remains the same D:

[snopKJ]

There are powerful macs, but they are a crapload more expensive then self built machines with the same specs.

however, would you rather have a pretty game that crashes when you are doing well, or a slightly crappier looking game that doesnt crash, and you can have fun forever

ive never had a single source game crash. thats rare as ♥♥♥♥ dumbass

[tbone2709]

I have to call BS on this. My steam crashed loads yesterday, and now it claims all my games are uninstalled when my hard disk space remains the same D:

Fixed the hard disc problem now.

[martyluther]

My portal may not crash as much compared to my PC but my actual Steam client crashes all the time. I am constantly having to force quit the application, especially in offline mode.

[Quakerman]

Mac users are a smaller install base than PC users, hence forth the crashing statistic can't be seen as linear, its logarithmic.

Basically; smaller sample size doesn't equal equal stats

I understand what you mean

If I remember correctly, standard deviation grows proportionally to the square root (not the logarithm!!!) of the population: in this sense, it is entirely possible that valve's employers didn't factor this argument and reported a false statistic. But maybe they are smarter than that :confused:

[stone man]

About the statistics argument, you're both right and wrong.

When you compare an extremely large population against an extremely small population (1 million vs 100 people) then YES, chances are the statistics won't be right.
In fact, the bigger the difference between the 2 populations, the bigger the chances that the results will be wrong. The "optimal" ratio is, of course, 1:1.

However, this isn't the case here, because you're not comparing 1 million against 100. I'm not sure exactly how many people currently play Steam on their Mac, but I'm sure it's in the tens of thousands AT LEAST. and 1 million vs X0,000 is actually a pretty accurate calculation (I should also note that when both sides are bigger it doesn't really matter anymore, for example 500,000 against 100,000 will probably give the same results as 1 million vs 100,000)

In the very same post, they said Mac users make up 11 percent of their customers, and I'd be astonished if Mac users aren't wildly overrepresented among Portal users (as it's the only big-name game on the platform). So this is a pretty fair comparison.

[mastertheknife]

Now where's Linux? its more stable than Mac.

[mchufnagel]

ive never had a single source game crash. thats rare as ♥♥♥♥ dumbass

I had HL2 crash on me one time. I was running on integrated Intel graphics though! LOL :p

But other than that, I've never had any problems with any Valve games. Valves engines are pretty stable. ;)

[elmancho02]

If Steam crashes on 10% of all computers (random stat) and you had 2 sample groups, one being made up of 10 million people and another made up of 100 people, there are going to be less people crashing in the smaller group.

Well, I study statistics, and thats not quite how it goes ;)
How it goes is: You are sure to 99.99% that it will affect 10% if the 10M population, howerver you are only sure to 70% that it will affect 10% of the 100 population.
Hence, on the 100 population, you are more likely to get between 2% and 18% of crashes, and thats sure to 99.99%.

[elmancho02]

Now where's Linux? its more stable than Mac.

Please leave. --->[]

[mastertheknife]

Please leave. --->[]

I like your attitude. Did mommy teach you this?

[damicatz]

There are powerful macs, but they are a crapload more expensive then self built machines with the same specs.

however, would you rather have a pretty game that crashes when you are doing well, or a slightly crappier looking game that doesnt crash, and you can have fun forever

How about a pretty game that doesn't crash. Source engine games on my PC have been perfectly stable, no crashes at all.

[gu3st]

Now where's Linux? its more stable than Mac.

In fact, it's infinitely more stable.

0 users run Portal natively on linux.
0 Crashes.

0/0 (apparently) = Div By 0 (as 0 goes into 0 infinite times).

Therefore, Linux is infinitely stable at running Source games natively.

:p

[mastertheknife]

In fact, it's infinitely more stable.
0 users run Portal natively on linux.
0 Crashes.
0/0 (apparently) = Div By 0 (as 0 goes into 0 infinite times).
Therefore, Linux is infinitely stable at running Source games natively.
:p

haha, true.

[Baby_Yoda]

In fact, it's infinitely more stable.

0 users run Portal natively on linux.
0 Crashes.

0/0 (apparently) = Div By 0 (as 0 goes into 0 infinite times).

Therefore, Linux is infinitely stable at running Source games natively.

:p

Actually you are wrong :P
0 divided by 0 is undefined.
think about this:
a * 0 = 0
here a can be anything. Then we put the first 0 on the other side of the = :
a = 0/0 ; So 0/0 can by anything.

Edit: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/math99/math99259.htm

[jeanlain]

K

25% of all People use a Mac (random number i pulled out of nowhere)

2 people were asked what they use

they both said PC

100% of people use a PC?

Hm.....................
I'm pretty sure the sample is large enough for differences to be significant with a risk of Type 1 error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors#Type_I_error) of less than 5%.

[Aura891]

I'm pretty sure the sample is large enough for differences to be significant with a risk of Type 1 error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors#Type_I_error) of less than 5%.

Unless it's the same amount and they only test the same amount of PC's as Mac users are tested then it is wrong either way

You can not say something is more stable on one platform then the other yet have different amounts of testings and test configurations, it's an unethical testing method

[stone man]

Actually you are wrong :P
0 divided by 0 is undefined.
think about this:
a * 0 = 0
here a can be anything. Then we put the first 0 on the other side of the = :
a = 0/0 ; So 0/0 can by anything.

Edit: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/math99/math99259.htm

So it could just as well be infinity. Anything to make it sound like Linux isn't a tiny niche OS with almost no best-of-breed consumer applications and terrible standards for user-friendliness.

[jeanlain]

Unless it's the same amount and they only test the same amount of PC's as Mac users are tested then it is wrong either way

You can not say something is more stable on one platform then the other yet have different amounts of testings and test configurations, it's an unethical testing method
Predictors (Generalized Linear Models) can accommodate to different sample sizes between modalities quite well.

In fact, I did a quick test: 100 Macs, 1000 PCs.
1 crash on the Mac, 5 times higher probability to crash (1/100*1000*5=50) in the PCs. R (ANOVA on a GLM with binomial error family; logit link) tells me that differences are significant with a risk of less than 2%. And that's considering the less favorable scenario (only 1 crash in the Macs).

[stone man]

Unless it's the same amount and they only test the same amount of PC's as Mac users are tested then it is wrong either way

Why? You're going to have to explain this. As long as we're dealing in probabilities and percentages — which we are — the total number of samples should only affect the margin of error AFAIK. What makes it totally invalid even for giving a ballpark estimate?

[Astraos]

Do any of you know anything regarding statistics?

If there was a number given, like Portal on the Mac has crashed 2,500 fewer times than its windows counterpart, then this statistic would be skewed. But not a percentage or ratio. Its still a valid statistic.

Sample size affects accuracy, but is that really an issue here? Its not as if they've only tested ten macs. There are thousands of users of steam on the mac, I think its a pretty good sample size.

And Aura891..... unethical? Really?

I feel like the internet gets dumber every day.

[Fuzz Bucket]

This thread...

[Vlad211]

Now where's Linux? its more stable than Mac.
I was waiting on someone to say that. Besides, I use a PC and my games barely even crash.

[Aura891]

And Aura891..... unethical? Really?


Performing two different tests and saying they are the same is not unethical, how?

Sorry guys but that's not how it works, had to burst your bubble

[stone man]

Performing two different tests and saying they are the same is not unethical, how?

Because the tests are not significantly different. As long as the sample gives a reasonably accurate picture of the whole, it doesn't matter that the sample sizes aren't precisely equal. For example:

1000000 PCs are sampled. 100000 crash. That's 10%.

100000 Macs are sampled. 10000 crash. That's also 10%.

It doesn't matter that you sampled 10 times as many PCs or that 10 times as many PCs crashed, because that doesn't affect the number that we're looking at. Neither platform is at an advantage by having a larger sample as long as both samples are representative.

[Astraos]

Performing two different tests and saying they are the same is not unethical, how?

Sorry guys but that's not how it works, had to burst your bubble


An ethical or unethical practice refers to morality or principles. Which don't come into question here. Check your words.

And they aren't different tests, dumb♥♥♥♥. They test to see if the PC version crashes. Then they check to see if the Mac version crashes. Then they compare. The amount of data that they have is different, but that doesn't make the results completely invalid. A little less accurate then possible, sure, but not invalid.

[jimmirock]

In my 6 years of using Macs for university and work (and now play); I've never had it crash. They do make a more stable OS but I'd imagine that's down to the limited hardware configurations it has to cater for. So this news doesn't surprise me in the least.

Source engine games occasionally crashes on my PC. TF2 is the worst for it, I normally get a crash a couple of times a week.