Mac vs PC

[Dan South]

I wouldn't run SQL Server or Oracle on a Mac.

 

I wouldn't run Visual Studio or Eclipse or Oracle Developer on a Mac.

 

Well, duh, SQL Server and Visual Studio are MICROSOFT products whose intention is to developing systems that run on a MICROSOFT OS. Running Visual Studio on a Mac is like running Logic or Final Cut Pro on a PC.

 

Oracle doesn't have an official version for Macs. You can download a free, stripped-down "educational" version for PC desktops, but it's hardly comparable to the multi-server, distributed enterprise edition that runs on blade servers and EMC storage.

 

Eclipse, like Java and Apache, is open source software and runs beautifully on a Mac.

 

I've used MS Office on Macs for over a decade without a single compatibility problem.

 

I wouldn't run Macs when a Netbook or Phone App is sufficient (for browsing, email, light word precessing/blogs, and MP3 playing).

 

You browse all you want with your iPhone. I can assure you that the web looks a lot different on my 24-inch HD Mac monitor.

 

I wouldn't run Macs and call it a state-of-the-art gaming computer.

 

For those of us who are over 14, gaming is not an issue.

 

 

 

 

[Aidan]

What I do know is this: When I had PCs (my first was a 486SX processor), I spent a huge amount of time playing with the system itself, tweaking here and there, occasionally firefighting the odd virus and trojan, and spending seemingly hours keeping firewall and anti-virus systems up to date.

 

Now, I spend that time actually working in applications. So for me, the switch to Mac has increased my productivity.

 

What I would say is that I have had a string of hardware issues with the current crop of Macs - I had to have a battery replaced on my Macbook Pro and it now needs to go into the shop again for a similar problem, while the logic board went on the five-year-old iMac G5 which I had passed on to my wife, making it uneconomic to repair.

[Matthiola]

Running Vista on two Sony Vaio's. Takes a little OS tweaking to force the processing delay down from 512 to 64 samples per buffer with a MOTU 828mk3 running Reaper 3 (effectively less than 3ms latency with just 15% cpu load). Never encountered one single problem. The whole PC vs MAC is just marketing...

[zephonic]

Running Vista on two Sony Vaio's. Takes a little OS tweaking to force the processing delay down from 512 to 64 samples per buffer with a MOTU 828mk3 running Reaper 3 (effectively less than 3ms latency with just 15% cpu load). Never encountered one single problem. The whole PC vs MAC is just marketing...

 

But that's the point, with a Mac you wouldn't have to bloody tweak.

 

Wow, 62 posts and not showing any signs of abating. This topic does it everytime.

[mcgoo]

As pointed out earlier, choice of software dictates choice of OS. I'm pretty married to Sonar, having used Cakewalk since DOS days. Macs look pretty cool & I'd flirt with it if Sonar went cross platform, but for now I'm happy to stick with Windows. I always get my systems custom built by Jim Roseberry (www.studiocat.com). The price is not at all out of line, especially since he loads all my software, tweaks everything & tests it out before delivering it. I'm looking forward to upgrading to Win 7 with a boatload of RAM & dual quad core or something insanely fast.

[MoodyBluesKeys]

I haven't tried Windows 7 either, but because it's so new, it probably won't be worth using for a while until more software starts supporting it.

 

This is not my primary DAW, but I am running Windows 7 Pro on this machine, and have it set up for general purpose plus being able to make and play music. Almost every application that ran on XP is running with no problem - generally, if there are Vista drivers available, they will work on Windows 7. I have an eMu 1212M pair of cards in the computer, works just like the 1820M in my DAW (which is XP Pro). I only have the LE versions, but Sonar and Cubase run fine, Finale 2007 runs fine, SmartScore X Pro runs fine. eMu's EmulatorX runs fine, B4 and Pro-52 run fine. This machine is partitioned so I can run either 64-bit or 32-bit Windows 7 - all the above programs also run on the 64-bit.

Bootup is about the same speed as the XP DAW. Admittedly, this machine has a Quad Opteron processor and 4G of RAM, whereas the DAW has a 3G Pentium 4 and 2G of RAM. (of course, the 32-bit version only sees 3.2G of the RAM).

 

I have not made any attempt to optimize this computer for music - the DAW in my shop/studio is set up just for music - this machine is in the home and is convenient to be able to play back stuff done on the DAW or to make minor changes.

 

Even my ancient HP LaserJet 5M printer is still supported (although it had to go out on the web for drivers). I also have a Mustek 11x17" scanner connected which allows me to input sheetmusic into SmartScore and render it to MIDI or Finale.

 

I have no idea how well any of the other MIDI/Audio cards, USB devices, FireWire devices, etc. work on Windows 7; but chances are that, if they have a Vista driver, it will work on 7.

 

[richwhite9]

Both platforms lag the other. They have separate development teams, and each team is free to add new ideas and processes, and it's up to the other team to incorporate them for compatibility. Office is unique at MS in that it is a Mac native app with a Mac specific dev team, and was in fact a Mac only app for quite some time before it became a PC app.

 

The Office moniker arrived in 89 on the Mac and 90 on the PC. Mac Office 2010 will have a new feature called 'Outlook'. You might like it when you first see it. I hear it's popular in many corporations with Exchange Servers.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

But that's the point, with a Mac you wouldn't have to bloody tweak.

 

Nor do you -have- to tweak a PC running Windows. People just do, because they have been shown how to improve the performance by doing so, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

But most DAWs work just fine with any Windows based PC right put of the box, and many developers recommend doing so.. it is the tweakheads who take it beyond.

 

I think that the only changes I have made to the OS is that I selected not caching the disk writing, and as I do on all my machines I turned off AutoInsertNotification for the DVD. I might have made similar non-big deal changes, but off the top of my head I can't recall what they would be. I do always turn the interface back to the 'classic' version, as I'm not impressed by fancy interfaces; but that isn't really a tweak, just a preference, though the end result does release some processing power for other tasks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

" Running Visual Studio on a Mac is like running Logic or Final Cut Pro on a PC."

 

Dan,

 

Microsoft wrote a lot of titles for Apple back in the day. And Logic used to run on the PC. Few things are as cut and dried as we like to think that they might or should be. Back in the days when Corel was its own company, the differences between the Mac and PC versions dictated to me that we needed to run Draw on a Mac. It was the right tool for the job. (But the SGIs were even nicer...)

 

Having cut my teeth on computers are C-MU, I really don't care which one I use, I'm more interested in the application. But a part of that is that, these days, I'm less interested in knowing what goes on under the hood. I use computers for communication like this, but the studio computers have always been tools used just for that purpose. I don't spend time searching the net for stuff, nor visit facebook or myspace or anything like that. For the purpose of office work or internet communications, either machine is fine. For the purpose of audio work, I use Sequoia, and Sequoia runs on a PC. Another application might dictate a different solution.

 

 

 

[ADino]

I cant imagine a pc doing as many tracks as I do on a mac..but I'll bet there are many that do..

 

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. The performance of a computer, especially the number of tracks you can use in a DAW, is dependent on its hardware. A PC with the same processor, RAM, and hard drive speed will perform equally as well as its Mac counterpart. There's nothing about Macs that make them somehow inherently perform better.

 

Did ya read my entire post? There are many studio's Ive been to that use pc's..or macs..but in my situation I prefer the mac..As I said, my son uses a pc/protools setup...granted it doesnt run as smooth as my mac setup, and you are correct about xp being better than vista for audio work, but I prefer mac for audio work....

 

On the cost comparison...they are equal...the mac cost more, but no more than if you buy a made for audio specific pc, which I would recommend...I can get a standard G5 or Quad and except for bumping memory, install my AI, SW and Im ready to go..whereas I wouldnt attempt that w/a standard pc..you need a pc made specifically for audio work, which work very well.

 

[timwat]

So for me, the switch to Mac has increased my productivity.

 

That has been my anecdotal experience as well. The difference has been significant and undeniable.

[Joe Muscara]

What I would say is that I have had a string of hardware issues with the current crop of Macs - I had to have a battery replaced on my Macbook Pro and it now needs to go into the shop again for a similar problem, while the logic board went on the five-year-old iMac G5 which I had passed on to my wife, making it uneconomic to repair.

My iMac G5 has had the motherboard and hard drive replaced a few times. This particular model was known to have a lot of these problems, but Apple was very good about fixing them and even extending the warranty for these repairs. The same goes for some of the MacBook battery issues.

 

However, I think in both cases, the problem lies with the supplier. The iMac suffered from the infamous leaking or bulging capacitor issue, and I also believe that the bad MB batteries came from a supplier.

 

These are cases where the Genius Bar was really handy. I just showed them the problem and they took care of it almost without saying a word!

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

So for me, the switch to Mac has increased my productivity.

 

That has been my anecdotal experience as well. The difference has been significant and undeniable.

 

I haven't found that to be true on an applications level. I find that certain apps improve my productivity. And the ones that matter to me today are audio apps, and my personal choice happens to be a PC-based app. But it was a personal choice, feature and look-and-feel based, nothing to do with the OS.

 

As I said above, any average persons need for word processing, internet, etc can be handled by any machine, it is when you get into more complex tasks that more specific answers apply. And as I don't really mess around with the OS anymore (used to care about 'working under the hood', don't anymore), I don't see much difference among the two major OS choices.

 

Were I working in video, I'd have to explore the software offerings for Mac, as the software solutions on the PC don't make me very happy.

[Bridog6996]

I cant imagine a pc doing as many tracks as I do on a mac..but I'll bet there are many that do..

 

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. The performance of a computer, especially the number of tracks you can use in a DAW, is dependent on its hardware. A PC with the same processor, RAM, and hard drive speed will perform equally as well as its Mac counterpart. There's nothing about Macs that make them somehow inherently perform better.

 

Did ya read my entire post? There are many studio's Ive been to that use pc's..or macs..but in my situation I prefer the mac..As I said, my son uses a pc/protools setup...granted it doesnt run as smooth as my mac setup, and you are correct about xp being better than vista for audio work, but I prefer mac for audio work....

 

On the cost comparison...they are equal...the mac cost more, but no more than if you buy a made for audio specific pc, which I would recommend...I can get a standard G5 or Quad and except for bumping memory, install my AI, SW and Im ready to go..whereas I wouldnt attempt that w/a standard pc..you need a pc made specifically for audio work, which work very well.

 

Yes, I did read your whole post, and that's not true at all. Making music on a PC is just as easy. Install your programs and go. It does not take a PC specifically set up for audio to equal a Mac. All is takes is equal hardware, and that same hardware is just as easy (actually, it's probably easier) to acquire with a PC. Your whole argument just makes no sense to me.

 

If you prefer a Mac, then great, I'm not interested in converting anybody to either side, but it comes down to personal preference, not performance.

[Mark Schmieder]

There are productive ways to discuss Mac vs. PC that don't degenerate into tired old arguments. For the sake of the OP, let's try to stick to those points, so the thread doesn't get shut down as yet another Mac vs. PC flame war. Is that possible?

[MonksDream]

There are productive ways to discuss Mac vs. PC that don't degenerate into tired old arguments. For the sake of the OP, let's try to stick to those points, so the thread doesn't get shut down as yet another Mac vs. PC flame war. Is that possible?

I doubt it. I tried.

[SK]

I dabbled with a Dell laptop for a while, but I stick with Mac for home use. Not saying it's necessarily better, and I agree the apps you use are a big factor.

 

The new iMac I have performs beautifully so far, and does everything it's supposed to do. Digital Performer runs smooth with no crashes. No complaints, except I haven't installed the Snow Leopard disc yet. Not quite ready to open that attractive can of worms.

[Throbert]

So I guess a PC running OSX is a Transvestite or bisexual or something like that

[MonksDream]

SK - I've been using Snow Leopard for a while and the only difference I've noticed is improved performance. The big caveat with SL is making sure your software and peripherals are compatible before you do the upgrade. I have an M-Audio FastTrack Pro that's not supported on SL but it seems to work fine. Logic 9 and Live 6 are my main music apps. No issues so far. I had to download a patch for Sibelius.

[SK]

Thanks, MonksDream. Yes, it's the possibility of software glitches that keep me from loading SL, but I'd probably be OK with it. They just had a software update for SL - I'm thinking of waiting for a couple more updates before I switch over, to give them time to sort through issues.

[Bridog6996]

Next discussion: Coke vs. Pepsi

[mcgoo]

Next discussion: Coke vs. Pepsi

 

and after that, Pro Tools vs. (state your DAW of choice here).

[Gismo Recording]

And there's always Ford vs Chevy

 

[ADino]

Ferrari vs Porsche

[ADino]

I cant imagine a pc doing as many tracks as I do on a mac..but I'll bet there are many that do..

 

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. The performance of a computer, especially the number of tracks you can use in a DAW, is dependent on its hardware. A PC with the same processor, RAM, and hard drive speed will perform equally as well as its Mac counterpart. There's nothing about Macs that make them somehow inherently perform better.

 

Did ya read my entire post? There are many studio's Ive been to that use pc's..or macs..but in my situation I prefer the mac..As I said, my son uses a pc/protools setup...granted it doesnt run as smooth as my mac setup, and you are correct about xp being better than vista for audio work, but I prefer mac for audio work....

 

On the cost comparison...they are equal...the mac cost more, but no more than if you buy a made for audio specific pc, which I would recommend...I can get a standard G5 or Quad and except for bumping memory, install my AI, SW and Im ready to go..whereas I wouldnt attempt that w/a standard pc..you need a pc made specifically for audio work, which work very well.

 

Yes, I did read your whole post, and that's not true at all. Making music on a PC is just as easy. Install your programs and go. It does not take a PC specifically set up for audio to equal a Mac. All is takes is equal hardware, and that same hardware is just as easy (actually, it's probably easier) to acquire with a PC. Your whole argument just makes no sense to me.

 

If you prefer a Mac, then great, I'm not interested in converting anybody to either side, but it comes down to personal preference, not performance.

 

But Im not arguing...personal preference is great, all for it....where'd you guys find the avatar beating the dead horsey...I love that....

[Mark Schmieder]

I guess that makes me a trisexual, since I use Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X. :-)

 

Currently, not on the same machine, but that might change once I finally get an Intel Mac.

 

Linux has some possibility to be a serious platform before long (there is finally some gravity in its direction from developers), but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Throbert]

OH, I wasn't talking about the user. I was just poking some some fun at it. Besides I've been researching that heavily along with thoughts of Linux and justifications for going for it.I would have to probably change out the video card to an Nvidia, get a Marion or Audio Science card, make sure My P5Q-E and all it's bits n pieces will work. Ah crap just shoot me.

[zephonic]

Linux as the next OS Holy Grail? I've been hearing that since Win95 (15 years ago). My dad (ever the MS-hater) wrestled with it for a couple of years and gave up. My bro installed Ubuntu on his PC and found he had no use for it. It also caused minor problems with his WinXP setup.

 

PS: Leatherman vs. Swiss Army knife?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mike Davis]

Well, this thread has been nice, but let me just sum it all up:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Macs are better!!!!!

 

ha ha ha

[Griffinator]

Ferrari vs Porsche

 

Short discussion. Porsche = hit and miss. 914 anyone?