CPU Memory management

[CrazyBernie]

Just a note: Holding down the Option key at Startup (or Restart, for that matter) will allow you to select the startup volume. Apple technicians are not idiots.

However... the last sentence would be an excellent suggestion if not for one fact: it's highly discouraged that somebody who doesn't know exactly what he or she is doing opens up a MiniMac and fools around with it... considering how elaborately tightly everything is organized (it's a very small computer, after all -- smaller than my hand both horizontally and vertically, and just two inches high... though it's highly powerful, and what's more the internal antenna's more powerful than the top-of-the-line really expensive USB antenna I'd bought for my PC -- just an aside, one of the numerous things I like about Mac). For that, I'd have to bring it to a shop, which would cost me a lot of money. (Admittedly there's a place right next door, and the guys there know me... but that's not going to make them friendly enough to lower their charges... they have to make money, after all.)

From my understanding, the requirement of removing the drive has nothing to do with the startup volume selection... it has to do with the actual installation of the Windows OS and preventing it from using your internal hard drive by default.

You might've tooled around with old G3's running OS9, but this quote suggests that you've not had the aformentioned experience with OSX... or at least with Leopard, since I can't speak for any system between 9.4 and 10.5.8 (and I didn't own a USB backup drive when I had my old G3 iMac). The difference between copying speed between volumes with Windows XP and Leopard is, I would say (by my own experience), approximately equatable to the difference between Dial-Up and DSL. When I was transferring files from my old XP to my new Mac, it took maybe about 10 minutes (at any rate, a very painfully long wait) to fill up a 256m drive, while it took a mere few seconds to copy the same data back from the USB backup onto my Mac.

I've used OS9 through Basilisk/Sheepsaver on my previous PC. I have/had G3 and G4 laptops running OSX 10.4.11.

Aslo, you're comparing the write performance (from your pc to usb) and read performance (usb to mac). Old computer vs newer computer performance comparisons aside, there's generally a big difference between read and write speeds on a usb flash drive. Reading is always going to be faster because there's no content modification.

That being said, my computer copies files faster to my flash drive faster than the mac laptops read them, but this is because my PC has USB 2.0 vs the 1.1 on the laptops, once again making it an unfair comparison (as is likely the reverse issue with your pc vs your mac).
I dare say that if you were using a PC and a Mac with the same hardware specifications, you wouldn't notice much of a difference in your copying of files and such.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and all that hooplah!

[Evnissyen]

I'd intended to let this conversation die . . . which is why I didn't post. (I saw the beginning signs of some old tendencies of ongoing arguments that tend to turn slightly bitter. I'm trying to grow up and change my combative tendencies, because other people way too often take offense when I don't mean offense, and I think it's all my fault for behaving badly.) However... I wanted to bring up something interesting I found out (for the sake of both honesty and informativeness):

When testing my flash drive on a PC, this past weekend, running Vista: I noticed that copying files was much, much faster.

I've no doubt this is because the processor on this machine is far more powerful.

The copying speed, when comparing to Mac's Leopard OS running on a low-end processor of 1.83ghz, was almost exactly comparable (Vista in fact was, by my timing, about 1 second faster copying 181m).

I just wanted to bring that up.

Now... I haven't tested the current iMac's speed... so even this is not a truly useful study. I won't even speculate if Snow Leopard (Mac's latest OS for those who don't know) on a Power Mac with a high-end processor vs. Vista with a high-end processor will prove faster. I do not know. Somebody with access to both will have to find out.

...but even so... the answer is probably not highly important. What's important is that everybody possess the computer that best serves their personal needs.

For me, that used to be Mac. Not so any longer, sadly, as I've recently found out.

(Bernie: stop grinning.)

[BasiliskWrangler]

I just had a conversation this evening with my friend about Mac vs PC (with a bit of Linux thrown in there).

What's important is that everybody possess the computer that best serves their personal needs.

Best statement made.

The fact is, Mac has a few applications (Pro Tools, Final Cut Pro) that are either exclusive to the Mac, or just run better on the Mac due to optimization. So, if you are a video editor or into music production, a Mac is the better choice. For gaming, PC is the obvious choice. For graphic design- Mac used to have the upper hand, now it is about even.

Where does Linux fit in? Well, I'd argue it's the best machine for web surfing. It's lean and runs on very low system specs, and is the only platform that has 64-bit Flash which can run on the only version of 64-bit Chrome. Can't do that on Mac or PC. Toss in there Evolution (or Thunderbird) for email and OpenOffice for documents, and you have a platform that would satisfy the needs of 80% of the population, and is essentially virus and malware free. In fact, I can go on and on about Linux has become my favorite OS over the past two years but it won't change anyone's mind.

In the end, just use what is best for you. [edit: Did I just hijack this thread? Sorry...]

[Evnissyen]

I haven't tried the video or music capabilities of Mac, so I cannot comment on those.

I will say that I prefer iTunes over RealPlayer or the Microsoft player. That's the only Leopard-compatible Mac application (is there a PC version?) that I prefer.

I also like the organization (huge plus there, I like to be able to just trash a program when I'm through with it, not having to go through an Uninstall process), I like the native keyboard symbols (like accent marks... it's nice not having to switch keyboard maps just to stick in an umlaut or an acute or grave and an enya.) . . . there're other things.

I also like how tiny the computer is. Physical efficiency seems to be the only thing Apple Computers is particularly good at, these days.

But... lately I've become increasingly interested in CRPG's... so Mac just doesn't cut it any longer.

Plus, they took away the easy-to-use-but-powerful graphics software. Apple Computers is just not doing it's job properly, any longer.

As for OpenOffice: Yes, I was using that over MS Word for the 2 or 3 years that I was using my PC. Decent software. Annoying pagination bug, but that's all. (At any rate: if I remember correctly, I think MS Word used to have a pagination bug as well.)

On Linux:
I have a friend I met in Art School who uses Linux. Tech guy, does internet security work. He takes PC's then removes Windows and 'converts' the computer to Unix. He likes to talk about how much more powerful Unix is than any OS, how he can find all sorts of stuff on the internet with direct programming commands using Unix (not using a browser, in other words), things that're normally blocked.

I can't speak of Unix/Linux/Ubuntu much because I'm not familiar with it. Sometimes I wish he still lived in Boston so he could teach me Unix... I want to know how to do what he knows. He showed me a little of it when I went to visit him down in DC, this past Spring... was interested, but obviously it never proved useful to me.

When my eldest niece is old enough and my sister and brother-in-law ask me which computer to get her (my brother-in-law did ask me that question a little while ago, and I suggested Mac because of its simplicity and lack of bugs), I'm going to suggest PC: not only because of games, but because of compatibility issues at stores and with random toys (I do not think that Staples and CompUSA will carry anything that isn't compatible with PC.)

[CrazyBernie]

When testing my flash drive on a PC, this past weekend, running Vista: I noticed that copying files was much, much faster.

I've no doubt this is because the processor on this machine is far more powerful.

I'd actually guess it's a combination of USB 2.0 and some post SP1 updates. Pre-SP1 Vista had some atrocious file copying speeds.

Now... I haven't tested the current iMac's speed... so even this is not a truly useful study. I won't even speculate if Snow Leopard (Mac's latest OS for those who don't know) on a Power Mac with a high-end processor vs. Vista with a high-end processor will prove faster. I do not know. Somebody with access to both will have to find out.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and pick the PC/Win7 combo. Not because I'm a PC/Windows person, but because the PC platform usually has a faster available processor (for less than what you pay for the Mac). This of course is due to the closed nature of Macs... they're automatically behind the times in terms of hardware availability. This handicap is only maskable by so much these days. If it was straight equal hardware, I'd give the nod to OSX over Vista, but not so much with Windows 7.

...but even so... the answer is probably not highly important. What's important is that everybody possess the computer that best serves their personal needs.

I'd go a step further and say that the difference is impercetible to normal folk. But what's really important is that we have healthy doses of competition that keeps the prices down! Well... at least on computer hardware anyway. 0_o

(Bernie: stop grinning.)

I wasn't grinning before this statement. It was an eyebrows-raised-half-shrug-"see-what-i-mean?" sort of thing. I try to only gloat in person.

In the end, just use what is best for you. [edit: Did I just hijack this thread? Sorry...]

You filthy thread-jacker. Wait... you mean you don't consult teh interwebs fanbois to make your decisions for you??

[Evnissyen]

I'd actually guess it's a combination of USB 2.0 and some post SP1 updates. Pre-SP1 Vista had some atrocious file copying speeds.

Hmm... interesting. I didn't know about that . . . but then again: why would I?

I have to say: comparing Vista to XP: I prefer XP. Maybe Vista-updated is ultimately faster and has improved features, I don't know, but I've found its 'features' annoying. Well, of course: were it my computer I'd locate the preferences immediately and hopefully be able to take care of some of those little annoyances . . . at any rate, for the sake of Vista users everywhere: I hope that's possible. If so then I suspect one can get used to the OS and end up preferring it to XP... although I've heard it's more buggy than XP.

I also don't like how they mixed up the shut down button with the coma button (and I say coma because you can't get out of it, you have to literally unplug the computer or switch off the surge protector. Bernie, why do you like Windows? It's an absolutely wretched OS. The only reason I'm willing to tolerate it again in the future is because of those compatibility issues I've mentioned again and again.)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and pick...

...Stop right there. I mean it. No speculating, fanboy. Let's be professional, here.

I wasn't grinning before this statement. It was an eyebrows-raised-half-shrug-"see-what-i-mean?" sort of thing. I try to only gloat in person.

Why, you arrogant little son of a... .

You know: you've only got one more star that I do. In time... well... just you wait... .

[CrazyBernie]

I have to say: comparing Vista to XP: I prefer XP. Maybe Vista-updated is ultimately faster and has improved features, I don't know, but I've found its 'features' annoying. Well, of course: were it my computer I'd locate the preferences immediately and hopefully be able to take care of some of those little annoyances . . . at any rate, for the sake of Vista users everywhere: I hope that's possible. If so then I suspect one can get used to the OS and end up preferring it to XP... although I've heard it's more buggy than XP.

More buggy? No. More secure, which for some people means more confusing, which for some people means more buggy? Absolutely.

Vista was redesigned from the gound up. They did this to overcome a lot of the fallacies/complaints of XP in regards to security. Microsoft went to all of the hardware manufacturers and said," Here's the new OS, it's different, its better, this is what you need to design your drivers to work with." The hardware peeps dropped the ball on driver development, and the OS ended up being released with shitty drivers. This is the biggest reason that Vista got bad press, which ultimately it was unsuccessful in stopping. Despite the fact that less than a year later it was a rock solid OS, people didn't forget. Worse, they told all of their friends, and all of a sudden all of these people who'd never even seen Vista were experts on why Vista sucked.

Check out the Mojave Experiment. It was great.

I also don't like how they mixed up the shut down button with the coma button (and I say coma because you can't get out of it, you have to literally unplug the computer or switch off the surge protector.

All I can tell you is that sleep mode has always caused headaches in Windows, because of the vast amount of different hardware configurations. In Windows 7, there's just the "Shut down" button (unless you click on the little arrow that gives you more options). I leave my computer on all the time so I rarely click on it.

Bernie, why do you like Windows? It's an absolutely wretched OS. The only reason I'm willing to tolerate it again in the future is because of those compatibility issues I've mentioned again and again.)

I like to build my own computers, and I like to play video games. At the end of the day, I don't give a damn who's operating system it is as long as it can do what I want it to do really well. Unfortunately for them, OSX and Linux can't do what I want them to do.

Analogy Time! I have a newspaper (web browser), and a chessboard with some fancy chess pieces (video game). I'm shopping for the best desk on which to place/store my items.

I walk up to the MacOS desk, as it catches my eye right away. It's beatifully designed, with a curved, flowing shape to it. The newspaper sits on it just fine (it has a pre-designated spot just for the newspaper), but the chessboard seems to have trouble balancing on the curves, so the pieces keep falling off. On top of that, I can't store the board and pieces when I want to put them away. Sure, it has storage space, but it's all sealed up so it can't interfere with the aesthetics. All that's left to do after I'm done playing is slide the board off the desk into the trash. It appears simplicity comes with a cost.

Next, I approach the Linux desk. Man, does this thing look cool! It's like something out of a Transformers movie... it can adjust its height, width, depth, even change its shape! There's a mechanical hand that holds my newspaper and even turns the pages for me. There's about 900 seperate compartments for storage... but they get in the way of placing the chessboard... sometimes the board sits fine, other times the board gets knocked over by a randomly opening door. The only way to get the board to sit properly is to use a "flat surface emulator" attachment that allows the board to hover above the desk. To put the board and its pieces away, you have to close some of the drawers to open others... and there's compartments inside of other compartments. It's the only desk in the world that comes with a 1000 page manual.

Finally, I saunder over to the Windows desk. It's a fairly plain looking beast... four legs, for drawers, and a flat desk surface. The newspaper has no problem hanging out on top of the desk, and there's plenty of level room to use the chessboard. The drawers are customizable with dividers, making organization pretty straightforward and not overly complicated. Sure, when I pull open a drawer to store the board and pieces, the rollers sometimes gum up and require a little extra tugging effort, but it definitely gets the job done. It won't win any beauty pageants, and certainly it won't save the universe, but it's just a freakin' desk. What else do you need it for?

[Evnissyen]

(Bernie: check out my PM)

Anyway... cute... but you forgot the unsanded and unvarnished edges of the Windows desk that will occasionally give you splinters if you're not careful.

...and the wobbly leg that sometimes breaks off and sends everything crashing.

(Am I tearing the metaphor?)

...but enough of that: I've got my old XP system installed now on my Mac... and boy are my elbows tired! (From all that sitting around, waiting for everything to install? Get it?) Yes, my significant other has returned to me, so I can play more cool games, and I can totally ignore her.

At some point she's sure to throw a tantrum and get everything to stop working.

"Ah! so... Now you notice me, huh?"

...Annoying that I had to copy everything over to my new drive because Boot Camp wouldn't allow me to partition external drives... .

...Also annoying the device problems that I had when I first installed re-installed Windows... the sound wouldn't work and the internet wouldn't work (and the printer wouldn't work, either, but that didn't matter to me at the moment) . . . the main problem was the sound; it couldn't even locate the external speaker port, and then the main problem became its failure to locate to internal internet antenna. (We Mac users are all quite proud of our... um... antennas.)

...but of course they didn't work, because Windows was running on a totally different machine and THERE WERE NO PROPER DRIVERS!

...stupid me, it had never occurred to me to put the Boot Camp disk in the drive once again once Windows was installed. ...Of course, granted there were no windows popping up -- or flashing icons for that matter -- to tell me so, and everything seemed all loaded up (sound notwithstanding, but that didn't occur to me right away), and worked (I was happy about that since my first install failed -- I did it wrong) so I immediately set to work re-customizing everything to make it look and work and feel less annoying... not as nice as my old Windows setup, but... workable.

...And then the sound problems were discovered...
...and then the registration blockout came along... .

I had to (re)register on the phone because I couldn't access the internal antenna, nor would it recognize either of 2 usb antennae designed for PC users (well, why should it, anyhow?). Thankfully it worked. (Reregistering, not the internet.)

Then... a lot of web searching for MINI MAC BOOK CAMP SOUND, found lots of people with sound problems, few answers... finally repeatedly seeing, on the Apple boards, the suggestion to load or re-load the special OS boot disk (what boot disk? Boot Camp (and I've got the latest version) never asked me to make one! Grrr... .) where the drivers are located... or to rerun Boot Camp (what? It would only allow me to either remove a partition or delete an installation)... it finally dawned on me I'd never actually re-inserted the Mac OS disk AFTER installing Windows.

So... end of story: I went back into Windows, put in the Mac OS disk, and up comes the Boot Camp window! Yay for Boot Camp windows! I'd never expected a Mac OS disc to work in a Windows environment, even if it is, in fact, on a Mac. So... it started installing all my drivers... huge relief. (It even installed my missing NVIDIA drivers which were causing problems with reduced graphics capability.)

Now... everything is beautiful. I can run some cool games that've been sitting around since I went back to Mac, as well as NWN (the original, yes), which I just got in box set (official campaign plus the 2 other special campaigns plus the Kingmaker expansion plus obviously all the updates and some other stuff) for just $15... I get to play that, now. Yes, I know I could've played the game a long, long time ago, but I remember being turned off by the moving camera even though I kind of liked the story... I remember being on the fence about buying it.)

Works real fast. I like the evasive actions like characters that actually step aside or duck -- NWN 2 doesn't have that, not from what I've seen, or did it remove that since my specs weren't up to requirements? ...but those old crude polygonal constructs I used to roll my eyes at when they were first being played around with are back... still, I can deal with bobbing heads, bobbing dreadlocks, shifting hair and angular body parts if everything else is good.

Now... I wonder if NWN2 for PC will work better under Bootcamped Windows than the Mac version works under Mac? (And considering I'm "not up to the minimal requirements", it still does run relatively pretty nicely, up to a point, and pretty smoothly whenever the character's on the screen alone or with just one other companion and it's still much prettier to look at than the original NWN . . . again that's the Mac version NWN2 I'm talking about.)

Was that a really long post I just made?

It's nice to be back (at the Drunken Lizard Pub, that is)... (and so you know: yes: I am (obviously?) writing this on my Mac OS... for even aside from the difficulty in xfering my bookmarks... the Mac is just nicer to use).

...newly discovered cold/flu notwithstanding.

[CrazyBernie]

I'll just respond to everything here, since I'm lazy.

First up, not only do you not meet NWN2's minimum processor requirements (1.83GHz vs 2.0GHz), but you also do not meet the minimum video requirements (64MB vs 128MB)... on the Mac side. The processor speed isn't such a big deal... I doubt that 170MHz is going to account for much performance loss. The video ram on the other hand, is a bit more of a concern. That may have been the reason you were running into stuttering issues when playing with a lot of enemies on the screen. In fact I'd be willing to put money on that, especially since it's the Intel GMA950. You mentioned someone telling you that intel processors were the worst; unless he is an AMD fanboy (or a fanboy of the pre-intel Macs), he was probaby referring to the graphics processor. Indeed, Intel's video chip is known to offer the worst level of performance for pretty much any game out there. Just ask BW... or check out the support sections of this forum.

What is interesting is that on the Windows side of your Mac, that video chip supports up to 224MB of shared memory... This raises your system requirements well above the minimum's for the PC version of NWN2.

Oh, and as a further discussion of processors, check out this comparison. It pits a processor similar to yours (1.86GHz) to the slowest Pentium 4 they had available (2.8GHz). You'll see that the Core 2 offers anywhere from 1.5 to 3 times the performance of the P4. Actually, if you look at the Supreme Commander score - a real time strategy game that involves hundreds of AI and user controlled units - it offers a 390% performance increase! That should alleviate any processor requirement concerns you might have left.

I am a little concerned that you mentioned having nVidia drivers on the system... there shouldn't be any to speak of. I hope you did a fresh install of Windows and didn't somehow copy your old XP partition over... 'cause then you'll definitely have problems... not unlike what you've already described. But since the Mac Mini didn't recieve nVidia graphics until the March '09 update, you shouldn't have any nVidia drivers loaded.

I will say that installing OSX on a looks to be equally daunting (although apparently its better documented by the community VS Apple's Windows install)... it's a task I have yet to partake in because I don't feel like spending the money on the OS and re-partitioning my hard drive. While Snow Leopard can be had for a mere $30, it requires a previous install of regular Leopard to work (for an AMD based system such as mine, anyway). It would certainly be interesting to see if OSX could handle an odd number of cores. It'd also be cool to compare a game like Eschalon running on three different OSes on the same machine...

...Annoying that I had to copy everything over to my new drive because Boot Camp wouldn't allow me to partition external drives... .

Only because you weren't willing to dissect your Mini...

Oh and regards to all of your install problems... in it's defense, Windows wasn't designed to be installed on a Mac in the first place... the fact that it runs without serious modification to the OS itself is testament to its compatibility. So you can't get mad (righteously, anyway) about having issues with Windows on a Mac.

[Evnissyen]

Really interesting. Thanks, man.

I do distinctly remember having NVIDIA drivers of some sort installed (or being prepared for installation -- it didn't specify) on the Windows installation by Mac's 2.0 (latest, I think) version of Boot Camp (yes, it was a fresh installation from my old XP (re)installation disk). I'm wondering if it might be possible that Boot Camp (prepared for the variations in PC video card choices -- for example I had an NVIDIA on my PC) might've been installing a translation driver?... I really don't know.

At any rate: I distinctly remember seeing "NVIDIA" in the installation window.

...Not that that necessarily means anything, ultimately.

I'm interested in whether or not extra CPU processor power can really make up for sub-par video card processing power.

I'm entertaining that it might be worth repurchasing NWN2 for the PC, despite the cost (unlike lots of people my age who have proper jobs, I'm still poor)... at the very least for the experiment, at least so I know... . But again: the cost . . . and . . . I've played the game... twice... and all that's left me now are the additional campaigns . . . possible increased speed aside.

[CrazyBernie]

Yeah, it's likely a pre-load situation where it preps drivers for multiple Mac models... i.e. it copies over the nVidia drivers for the newer Mac Mini's regardless of whether the machine actually uses them. Otherwise they would have to create custom BootCamp discs for each model... very unlikely.

I'm interested in whether or not extra CPU processor power can really make up for sub-par video card processing power.

In a word: sometimes. It depends on a couple of factors... whether or not the graphics chip has the base level acceleration that the game is looking for, and whether or not the game is cpu vs gpu bound. I know there were issues with the shadows in NWN2 not being properly accelerated by the gpu, causing a bit hit in processor performance. Whether this was rectified in later patches, I dunno.

You could always take a look at the NWN2 Tweak Guide should you decide to bite and purchase it.

The PC version can be had for pretty cheap these days...

[Evnissyen]

Yeah, it's likely a pre-load situation where it preps drivers for multiple Mac models... i.e. it copies over the nVidia drivers for the newer Mac Mini's regardless of whether the machine actually uses them. Otherwise they would have to create custom BootCamp discs for each model... very unlikely.

Ahh! Of course! Of course! Why didn't this occur to me? Understandably it's a thick skull and the brain is a little bit mushy by now, but I'm the Mac user, here. Mac has different cards on different systems, plus some systems (much more expensive) are expandable while mine (grr... I could afford it) is not.

NVIDIA's an option for some models. MacMini now comes with NVIDIA (I should've waited should've waited should've waited... oh yeah, I wouldn't've waited any longer, plus Apple had given us no word at that point (so far as I'm aware of) that they were planning on updating the MacMini.)

NWN2 w/ MotB expansion is $28... an okay price. And I'd put more consideration into spending the money -- knowing that eventually in the distant future I will have to own it -- if I didn't suspect that eventually I'll be able to go back and there'll be a package containing both expansions, for less money... and fewer potential dragging bugs since my cpu will be more powerful, the graphics card will be more powerful, and possibly some more fixes will've emerged.

...And... by then I'll be nostalghic for NWN2 once again.

At any rate I've a whole NWN (original) set to go through. ...And also, I won't be able to take my #2 Save Files with me when I move back to PC, sigh... .

At least so far, it's not better than the sequel -- no matter what the fanboys say (or how much they squeal about Aribeth) -- except for the fact that you can attack (and kill) nearly anyone you want (you just can't do that in the sequel - it's fun and I'm sorry they got rid of it, I guess they figured it was redundant since it no one used it except at the beginning when they were playing around with it -- sound reasoning, at first guess, if that's what they considered) . . . and the dodging ability . . . I'm still not sure whether or not NWN2 took that out of my system because of low requirements or of the developers scrapped it altogethr because they had so much stuff to work with as it was. I suspect the latter, but only people who've played it on a decent system can tell me. However... I've still a whole storyline to go through. One of the things I don't like so far, though, is that at the very beginning it sticks you right in the middle of Neverwinter. Too much clutter to absorb at the very beginning of a game. NWN2 does it much better... gradual immersion into the story.

So... I hope the storyline picks up (I love a great story, after all), or I'm going to have to defy the NWN (original) fanboys. (Shiver!)

...But I'm good at defiance, it's what I'm best known for, I think. I suspect it's why so many people hate me. ...sigh... .

(Yes, this post marks the beginning of my acceptance of emoticons. I'm giving in. I'm tired of people misconstruing my friendly irony or friendly teasing as a sarcastic barb.)

[CrazyBernie]

Well according to the wikipedia entry, NWN2 is generally heralded as having a better story than the original. I've played through 95% of NWN, and about 50% of NWN2 (Someday I'll finish 'em... 0_o), and I'm inclined to agreed that the second is a little better. NWN2 reminds me more of Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale... and for me that's a good thing.

My reasoning is that going from 2D to 3D created a lot of technical challenges, which is why the story suffered in the first NWN. With the second, it was more or less just spit and polish to the engine, so they had a bit more liberties with plot, background, and character development.

(Yes, this post marks the beginning of my acceptance of emoticons. I'm giving in. I'm tired of people misconstruing my friendly irony or friendly teasing as a sarcastic barb.)

Well, we are a physically expressive race, after all.

[Evnissyen]

Thread continued in the RPG forum since the topic has changed. (Take that, BW! This thread is going straight back to where it first started! )

Now: Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale... yes. Baldur's Gate #1 I have and haven't played yet (well . . . I started it), I'll have to get around to it of these days. Icewind Dale, yeah, I'll have to get around to that one, too. It's a little embarrassing I've been ignorant of these games for so long.

...But none before Eschalon Book II, of course.

...And I won't play that one on a PC. I refuse.

I'll wait until it comes out on Mac, I will, I will.