Skip to main content

pc vs mac

Member for

21 years
Maybe this has been answered many times before, but I don't understand why a mac is better for recording. I know they are well built, easy to use, and much more stable. But if you know how to maintain your computer does that really matter? You also get a lot more bang for your buck with a pc or windows based laptop. I'm asking this because i'm looking into getting a new comp, preferably a laptop. Everyone raves about macs for recording but when i look at the specs on a windows based comp and a mac you get a hell of a lot less on the mac for the same dollar. Will a mac still outperform anything else regardless of lower processing speeds and lower ram?

Comments

Member for

19 years 10 months

Kev Sun, 12/24/2006 - 14:21
VonRocK wrote: You CANNOT run OS X on a windows based machine without breaking the law.
why is that ?

if I walk into a shop and purchase a Mac OS ... say OSx
and install it on one computer
... doesn't matter if I succeed or fail ...

why can't it be the computer of my choice ?

Member for

15 years 4 months

dementedchord Sun, 12/24/2006 - 14:22
VonRocK wrote: [quote=Scoobie] Apple useing windows, what is that saying......Thats something to think about.


That's saying that if you absolutely must use a windows only program, you can. Apple isnt useing windows. It allows a user to run a windows operating system within the mac operating system, or you can run windows all by itself on your mac hardware.

It is a marketing strategy aimed at people who don't want to or can't let go of some peice of windows only software.
no it's an admission that even they have had to move to intel chips and away from motorola... and as such there code is not all that different from micros softs.... hence the idea of the jews (poor little apple) joining the nazi's (big bad intel which really was the basis of the compatability wars) against the french (microsoft.. who really cares about the french it's just an os)

bowing east (from st louis) "we are unworthy...we are unworthy..."

Member for

15 years 10 months

hueseph Sun, 12/24/2006 - 17:37
dementedchord wrote: [quote=VonRocK][quote=Scoobie] Apple useing windows, what is that saying......Thats something to think about.


That's saying that if you absolutely must use a windows only program, you can. Apple isnt useing windows. It allows a user to run a windows operating system within the mac operating system, or you can run windows all by itself on your mac hardware.

It is a marketing strategy aimed at people who don't want to or can't let go of some peice of windows only software.
no it's an admission that even they have had to move to intel chips and away from motorola... and as such there code is not all that different from micros softs.... hence the idea of the jews (poor little apple) joining the nazi's (big bad intel which really was the basis of the compatability wars) against the french (microsoft.. who really cares about the french it's just an os)

bowing east (from st louis) "we are unworthy...we are unworthy..."

Whoa! Stop right there. Mac's have been able to run Windows on their machines for a long, long time now. Well before the advent of OS X and at least as far back as Mac OS 8. This isn't something new.

It has only been just recently that any Windows machine has been even remotely capable of running Mac OS and at that, very poorly.

The only reason that Mac has turned to Intel as a chip supplier is that IBM could not deliver the speed that Intel was offering. Was this some form of blasphemy? No. It was logical and economically sensible. Why leave your self in the lurch to just to maintain a "principle"? Of course a lot of people were sad to see Mac going from a RISC based processor to a "SISC" (This is not an actual term but implies a software based instruction).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC

RISC processors make more sense. They do. That's why Apple insisted that they were more efficient chips and thus technically could be as fast as higher rated Intel chips. This is true. Unfortunately with the speeds that Intel has been acheiving and with the inability of IBM/MOTOROLLA to deal with heat problems in creating a faster RISC chip, efficiency became less important. The choice was obvious. Sacrifice RISC for a faster processor but make up for it by using a smarter OS.

They bit the bullet. Admitted defeat in the procesor department and have grown in leaps and strides because of it.

When will you ever see Microslop admit to their mistakes? Never. Wouldn't it be great if MS just said "Hey! Our OS has too many damn holes in it for pirates and hackers. Lets start from the bottom and build up!" You'll never see it happen. Going to the NT kernel was a good move but not far enough.

As far as OSX being similar to Windows: That's just a rediculous statement. It's like saying that Linux is similar to Windows. OSX-Unix. Windows - DOS. Not the same in any way.

Member for

19 years 10 months

Kev Mon, 12/25/2006 - 13:05
VonRocK wrote: Thanks for calling me, and a large portion of users on these forums, assholes.
and ditto from me

but
then I also use Digidesign product ... that probably makes me a double asshole

:roll:
and I use Microsoft product also
...
there is just no hope for me
:wink:

Member for

15 years 4 months

dementedchord Mon, 12/25/2006 - 15:49
nd why/when did apple decide to limit their os by using a RISC??? why would you??? it's been awhile since tech school but i was given the impression the diff was more at the machine language level not the os... and the primary reason to go to a reduced instruction set was for speciallized processes not generalized.... and who said osx was similar to windows??? although it is more now... since they are code compatable at the machine language level... have to be to use the same chips... and since ms gave up the whole dos shell shit long ago....

Member for

20 years 5 months

MadMax Mon, 12/25/2006 - 20:29
Let's get a few little items cleared up... or at least as I've known and experienced them since being in this whole Mac v PC BS - before either company existed...

Until the advent of the AGP card, the video traversed the entire databus along with all processor info. That gave the Motorola and IBM chips that Apple requested/spec's the speed and processing power advantage... like up to 3.5x the speed. That's because the video was pushed onto it's own bus before it hit the CPU... RISC processing.

IBM smoked the Intel chipset so bad that there was no way they could offer it to apple and be competitive. Why... because while Motorola was advancing the DSP/RISC technology, the Fishkill folks at IBM were perfecting it.

The along came AGP and actually resembled the Apple video bus close enough, that the core kernal could be run on the Intel chipset.... can you say RISC? (I knew you could...)

Rumor has it that IBM's R&D within the CPU group, just wasn't making anymore inroads in the speed department much beyond 6.0GHz. In the meantime, Intel had broken the 3 micron junction barrier and was able to lace two CPU's in the same substrate as a single chip... "Dual Core"...

With the combination of dual core technology and the AGP, it just made sense for apple to bloat the OS by 15% and transition to the Intel chipset... besides, Gates and Co had started sleeping with Intel enemy... AMD.

This evidently pissed off a few folks at Intel and that finalized their decision to produce chips to Apple's spec.

So which one is "better"? meh... I prefer Apple because of the stability of the UNIX kernal and the Windoze OS just won't get out of the way I prefer to work... which is usually with 5-9 apps running at the same time.

As far as a one trick pony box that's JUST going to run one application... meh... whichever one you get the best value on... otherwise for general and business computing, Apples are 20-27.5% cheaper in the long haul... I can show you numbers if you care...

Member for

16 years 6 months

cfaalm Tue, 12/26/2006 - 01:50
Forget about virusses. A PC for music production doesn't belong on the internet. If you dual boot you can have one "candy bar all things go" XP for surfing and downloading and another highly tweaked boot for strictly music. Watch what you download. That's how I did it.

Member for

15 years 8 months

ouzo77 Tue, 12/26/2006 - 02:37
nice discussion.
I work with windows/dos based pc's for 12 years now. I've also worked with macs. I never really liked them. the reason was that being used to windows I couldn't work as fast on mac os/osx because I didn't know it so well.
nevertheless, my next machine will be a mac, because I work with logic, which isn't continued for windows (damn you, emagic) and want to get the new one. after some researching I started liking the macs more. they're not that expensive as many think, they are silent, the hardware/case design is very convenient, it works with windows and it looks cool. and it runs logic, which really is the reason I will buy a mac.
I would continue working with pc's if it wasn't for logic, but only because I'm used to them. that would be the only reason for me to stick with a pc.

what i'm trying to say is, this whole pc vs. mac situation is a result of the averseness to the unknown and people talking half-truths. though I know windows by heart and know what i have to do when there's any problem i'm willing to learn osx because it runs the software i like. that should be the only, or at least the main criteria for choosing a system.

hope this makes some sense, it's quite early in the morning...

Member for

15 years

VonRocK Tue, 12/26/2006 - 09:47
ouzo77 wrote: nice discussion.
after some researching I started liking the macs more. they're not that expensive as many think, they are silent, the hardware/case design is very convenient, it works with windows and it looks cool. and it runs logic, which really is the reason I will buy a mac.
I would continue working with pc's if it wasn't for logic, but only because I'm used to them. that would be the only reason for me to stick with a pc.


After you get your new mac and use it for a few months, come back to this thread and tell us all about how much you love it.

:D

Member for

15 years

Scoobie Tue, 12/26/2006 - 12:32
I usally stay away from a discussion like this, but. I disagree with alot that has been said in this discussion. I still think the only reason for going with a PC or a Mac , is software choice. I don't think one is better than the other one, Not anymore.

Ten years ago, I might have said Mac was better for audio work. I would have said they were better for video work, thats for sure. But that's just not true anymore.

Most, but not all the big studio's here in Nashville use Mac with ProTools, Let me say it again, Pro Tools not PTLE. There is a big difference. But I know frist hand that some have problems all the time with there Mac's. And have even switched over to PC and use something besides ProTools.
The major studio's have both, PC and Mac. Like I said ,Ten years ago it was a different story.

I'm still not saying one is better than the other. I use a PC with Samp and Sonar. But use another Studio all the time with ProTools. Love'em both, just my 2cents.


Peace...........Scoobie

Member for

15 years 8 months

ouzo77 Wed, 12/27/2006 - 01:30
Cresta wrote: you may switch to Cubase, and use the presets for Logic keyboard shortcuts :D

I've tried cubase and didn't like it. I had huge problems with latency (it wouldn't work under 512 samples, logic works with 128 without any glitches) and the whole structure and workflow isn't "logic"al to me. changing keyboard shortcuts wouldn't help at all.
but this isn't "cubase vs. logic" it's "pc vs. mac".

i totally agree with scoobie. maybe 5 or ten years ago mac's had been better for audio, video and graphics, but nowadays it's only about what you prefer.

Member for

15 years

VonRocK Wed, 12/27/2006 - 08:23
So the general feeling seems to be shifting towards "they are both good", however, one of them has over 114,000 known viruses and trojans, and the other one has ZERO viruses and trojans.

That alone makes one better than the other.

It's an absurd argument to state that a PC should not be hooked up to the internet if it's a DAW. How do you do windows updates? Or keep your virus software up to date, let alone your audio software? You can catch viruses from removable media, such as a CD as well. You obviously can also get your updates on CD also. That's not too much of a pain in the ass if you have two computers. Make sure you have two computers. One for your DAW, and one to go on the internet and get updates for your DAW. Yikes.

Granted, a large proffesional studio is not going to use their DAWs for anything else but recording, but most people coming here are amateur and semi proffesionals. By recommending a windows based PC to them, you should be obliged to mention the annual fees involved with good antivirus software. Don't forget about the cost in time of learning and implementing the proper use of this software and safe internet practices, and the cost in time of applying these principles on a DAILY basis.

Saying that Windows based PC's and Apple Macs are the pretty much the same is another one of those lies.

Obviously, both are more than capable of getting the job done. Just one of them is going to make life a lot easier for you.

Member for

20 years 5 months

MadMax Wed, 12/27/2006 - 18:56
VonRocK wrote: So the general feeling seems to be shifting towards "they are both good", however, one of them has over 114,000 known viruses and trojans, and the other one has ZERO viruses and trojans.

Vista's out now... three new exploits today alone... 114,003

Member for

14 years 10 months

Music_Junky Thu, 12/28/2006 - 05:49
Well yes windows has lots of viruses, is it because of poor programing or because it's the os with the most users?
When apple gets more popular and it will, then people who write viruses will become more intrested in writing viruses for apple thats just how it goes.

I am a pc user and always have been but my next cpu will be a mac. I like the idea to be able to run both osx and windows on the same machine with out some virtual machine crap.

Now i've got dell latitude laptop with 1.7 ghz cpu solocore and it is kicking my friends powerbook G4's ass in running pro tools LE.

mac vs pc it just depents on what you want to do. there are good pc's out there and there are poor the same goes for the mac i think, but what do i know? :)

Tags

x