Skip to main content

pc vs mac

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

RemyRAD Sat, 12/23/2006 - 09:44
Everybody is really talking about 2 entirely different operating systems.

The Bill Gates Windows, is Windows. The wonder of Windows! I.e., will it work the same way tomorrow as it did today? Maybe, if you're lucky. Most of the time I'm lucky.

OS X is UNIX and is based on a more stable scientific operating system developed by IBM many years ago. Think about that for a moment.

Apples now use Intel....

Isn't that sort of like the Jews joining the Nazis to defeat the French? Or is that too bullish?
Ms. Remy Ann David

Scoobie Sat, 12/23/2006 - 20:50
I never have understood what the big deal was about , MAC / PC. I have seen Mac DAW's that was bad ass, PC DAW's that was too. I use both all the time. The computer I'm useing right now is a Mac. They both can get the job done.

I guess it all depends on what software you want to use, Hell I don't know. Oh yea, Apple useing windows, what is that saying......Thats something to think about.

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

VonRocK Sun, 12/24/2006 - 09:02
Scoobie wrote: 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.

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..."

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 Mon, 12/04/2006 - 16:06
You may want to know that you can run Win Xp on a Mac. Mac's new OS comes with an application that allows you to dual-boot (i.e. choose whether you want to boot up in the MAC OS(Tiger) or windows xp. If you're looking at buying a new mac, you'll be able to run xp on it.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/
The link will show you everything you need to know on that front

There is a way however, that you can get the MAC OS to run on a pc. The nice people at these links will show you how.

http://www.xplodenet.com/newsite/
http://www.uneasysilence.com/os-x-proven-hacked-and-running-on-an-ordinary-pc/
http://www.osx86project.org/

I hope this helps with your decision, whichever way you go.

Mason

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....

hueseph Mon, 12/04/2006 - 21:08
Randyman... wrote: Wow. OS-x on a PC. I might have to try that for kicks and grins :)

:cool:

Unfortunately a pc is hardly as capable of running OSX as a Mac is of running XP. That's just the way it is.

Regardless of the system you decide to get, maintenance is the key. Keep track of your files, do regular back ups and don't use crack.

The one thing Mac has over PC is the need, or lack thereof, for antivirus software. In fact most of the antivirus software out for Mac is in order to prevent your clients and friends from getting viruses which have absolutely no effect to your computer but may destroy a PC.

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...

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...

gdoubleyou Tue, 01/02/2007 - 13:47
Kev wrote: [quote=VonRocK]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 ?
It would ban illegal copy of the OS because you currently cannot buy a boxed version that is Intel compatible.

The only legal way to get the Intel compatible version is to buy a MacIntel.
this will chanhe when OSX.5 is released.
8)

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

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

hueseph Wed, 01/31/2007 - 15:05
wavemakersdj wrote: I have recently started trying out the mac osx on a seperate pc, and while I love the way it's set up, I just have a hard time switching when windows is so easy to configure and make run well if you just know what you are doing. I have 0 antivirus software, 0 firewall software or spyware software or any of that nonsense. Use firefox, don't download really small software off of P2P sites and services, and use your brain a little.

Windows can work, and I am sure OSX can work well at the same time, I am just stuck on the versitility of having everything you can think of for the pc available, and not to mention the PC IS less expensive if you build it yourself. I am doing all of that work on a pc that cost me $1300

YOu can't compare a pc running OSX to a Mac! The thing that Mac users love so much about their machines is that Mac's are built to work. You don't have to worry about this piece of hardware not jiving with this other hardware or that particular peice of software. They work because they were designed to from day 1. Regarding software, it either works on your mac or it doesn't there's no guesswork. You look at the sys req. and your Mac either meets it or it doesn't. With a PC, well it may work if you have the right hardware oh and don't run this while such and such is running and....

By the way, for $1300.00 you can get a pretty nice Mackbook fully loaded with software, blutooth compatability, wireless networking, isight and mic built in. You even get Garageband to tide you over till you buy whatever DAW you prefer.

Member Sat, 02/17/2007 - 13:56
The same huh...
So how many Mac-to-PC converts are there? Hmmmm?

I have "converted" dozens of my friends and colleagues to Mac and not a single one has gone back - even the most skeptical of them. It's a simple issue that the Mac is more intuitive. Once you get rid of your PC habits, it's so much easier.

Yes, you can do audio on a PC, but how long does it take you to set it up? I once bought a powerbook and an MBox and broke the cellophane at a gig - I was recording 15 minutes later. Anyone willing to risk that with a PC? My switch to Mac was the result of PC frustrations (like it would crash when I opened the calculator!), and I've never looked back. I'd rather work on music than troubleshoot my DAW every time someone releases a security patch.

That's my gig...

drumist69 Sat, 02/17/2007 - 18:03
I've run freeware here on my home studio PC ( A stock Dell 2.94 processor, 1 Gig Ram, etc...) and never had a flaw. I use that machine solely for recording...its never been connected to the internet(s). We're getting a used G5 Mac soon here for our main household computer. I may play with recording a bit on it to see the difference. I'm curious! ANDY

Kev Wed, 01/03/2007 - 00:35
not an illegal copy of anything

Apple shop
purchase an OS
If I am skilled enough to put it one one computer I don't see how it can be deemed illegal

the agreement doesn't say Mac only as far as I know
it just says one computer ... ?

there was a time when Apples were not the only Mac OS capable computers

??
was it
Power Computing that was the official Mac Clone ?

gdoubleyou Wed, 01/17/2007 - 15:17
Ballz wrote: I think it all comes down to experience. Are you going to believe a list of numbers and specifications, or somebody who has been operating the particular machine in a practical manner. I tend to take a lot more from obviously experienced users than from biased purists.

I have been running Pro Tools on a PC with an AMD Athlon 2100+ processor for 3 years now, and it has been rock solid. My roomate has a 17" Imac Duo Core, and it is extremely quiet and reliable. My PC is louder indeed, but I isolate it and it's not an issue for me. I am building a new PC because I have had positive experiences with a PC. A new PC is cheaper to build, and is totally expandable and upgradable by ME - if you open your Imac, I believe your warranty is void.

You can open to add RAM, Hard drive, without voiding the warranty.

8)

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.

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.

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