PC or Mac for recording?

Do you use PC or Mac for recording

  • PC

    Votes: 343 51.9%

  • Mac

    Votes: 217 32.8%

  • Both

    Votes: 80 12.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 21 3.2%
  • Total voters
    661
Try running a server on a windows xp machine for a whole year
Click to expand...

Um, everyone runs XP servers with no problems, thats why microsoft is where they are today. I have seen Ford's data center which has a staggering number of XP server machines(along with sparcs and the odd 100+ processer clusters). Now do you think IT managers at a facility that has responsibilty of 20,000 or so machines just decided on windows because thats what everyone is using? Those machines have a 99.9% uptime and are in a production environment (which sole purpose is to make Ford money) and if they go down, ppl get fired over it.

The problem with Windows is that configuration, usage, and upkeep is for the most part completely over the heads of most users. A properly configured windows machine will run stable as anything. My XP machine has not been turned off for almost a year and that machine is constantly connected to the internet. Number of blue screens? ZERO Number Viruses/Malware: ZERO

The beauty of the Mac is that its tested, using high quality parts, with a pretty fancy OS and will run good out of the box and stay good with little user interaction. Everything OS related is opinion

These days its personal preference ONLY especially in the intel Mac world where you can dual boot OSX and XP on a Mac
 
um right sir. That's why the 268 dell servers that I'm ahead of, all run windows xp huh? no wrong, windows 2000 servers. The regular user's computers are windows xp. but I'm always running down the halls fixing someone's computers every day.

but I'm not saying that windows xp is a flop, don't get me wrong. I'm just stating what I've seen. My windows xp is running fine, except when sometimes, it freezes when I have 1 to many programs running. And yeah, much of it has to do with the user's ability to handle their own system & also the quality of the parts inside plays a role too.
 
Last edited:
I don't think I'm an inexperience user, I've been repairing & troubleshooting PC's for years and years on going, certified. When I was working as a sr. tech at Lone Star Computers' over in DFW area, I've seen over hundreds and hundreds of computers come and go, because of windows.
Click to expand...

I've seen my fair share of Windows PC's have problems as well. I've built PC's, repaired them and been to hell and back banging my head in past years, but I feel that Windows XP is not a bad OS as all, and most certainly better than Windows 2000 and earlier.

Maybe you are one of the lucky ones, or you simply don't have much on your windows installed to cause any problems. It's hard to believe, you haven't had to restart your computer once, because it either locked up, or your Internet explorer gave an error.
Click to expand...

I take care of my PC, I guess that makes me lucky. I have a good share of software installed on my PC - everything from DAW software/plug-ins, to Web development software I use on a daily basis and more. Running Windows XP Professional, I have had issues (didn't say I didn't), I just haven't had anything I would call "showstopping" were I scratched my head and had to spend hours figuring out what went wrong.

Also, I didn't say that XP crashes ALL THE TIME, but it does crash more then mac os does and XP doesn't crash like daily or anything, I was stating that basically the frequency of crashes that happen, say in one year, is a whole lot more then one that's running a mac os.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that you stated that "XP crashed all the time". In fact, you made a kind of general statement that "any windows has a whole lot of bugs, and is unstable as hell". That isn't a valid statement IMO. Does that include Windows 3.1, 95, 95, 2000 and XP? Again, a general statement.

The only stable windows is windows 2000/NT. Try running a server on a windows xp machine for a whole year, and have no problems at all.
Click to expand...

I run a server using Windows 2003 Server and I've setup servers here for my Web development business. I've used Windows 2000 Server in the past and I thought it was pretty good. It did crap out on us, but I didn't diligently perform upkeep on it.

Also, ANY fair share of problems is problems, regardless of how you look at it. It sounds like your just over looking any problems that you had with microsoft.
Click to expand...

Yes, problems are problems - never thought or stated any different. I'm not overlooking problems and as I stated, I'm not a Microsoft lover. I said "I've certainly had my share of issues in the past with both MS OS's and MS apps."

I've seen Linux user's run their computer for a year or more, with it being on all the time, and not crash once, not lag because of 2 many app's on, not dump it's system memory & cause crashes etc.
Click to expand...

Great. I run multiple apps each day on my Windows XP PC, and I'm not suffering from "lag" or poor performance. I'm not an average user either. I've spent time tweaking my PC, and am in front of it at least 10 or more hours a day for my business and for my music creation pleasure.

BTW just take a look at this forum, there are more problems w/ people using windows period, that can't get something to work, or is doing that, or whatever, hardware/software etc. Granted mac's are not the perfect machine either, but it's more reliable then pc's
Click to expand...

I don't have to take a look at the forum. I've seen plenty of posts here and elsewhere regarding PC issues and IMO, it's easy to tell the posts where the users are simply impatient, inexperienced and get pissed off to the point where they probably made things a lot worse than they began with.

So anyway.....I simply posted to contradict your "any windows has a whole lot of bugs, and is unstable as hell" statement.
 
Last edited:
I agree that windows xp is better then any other windows that was prior to that, but it isn't always the best at what it does in stability issues. It would seem that it should be, since the majority of the computers in the world are running some type of windows. Also, great, your not lucky, you have the know-how of maintaining a stable system. However, for a company that prides itself in the ease of use etc, majority of customers that have it, either had some type of problems while running the os. If that wasn't the case, people like me & you would be out of a job.
 
I've had numerous problems on Mac and PCs over the years. Both as bad as each other really.

I NEVER had a single problem doing audio/music on the Amiga 1200. Although that was 8Bit audio and only four audio tracks...
:D
 
Mindset said:
I agree that windows xp is better then any other windows that was prior to that, but it isn't always the best at what it does in stability issues. It would seem that it should be, since the majority of the computers in the world are running some type of windows. Also, great, your not lucky, you have the know-how of maintaining a stable system. However, for a company that prides itself in the ease of use etc, majority of customers that have it, either had some type of problems while running the os. If that wasn't the case, people like me & you would be out of a job.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's not a perfect world. :)

I do know a few people who are happily using Windows XP that I installed on a PC I built for them (and who aren't really savvy with PC's). I try to be proactive by educating my clients on keeping their PC's as healthy as they can. This is where I think the "big boys" have failed. I think of how many times I've resurrected Dells, HP's, Compaqs, and so on. You can't just install Windows and "let it go". So, I guess I'm doing my part to make a better world (ha ha). :D
 
not to start another subject :D but why is it that I've always some how manage to see more dell's & compaq's go through the door for repairs, but yet people still buy name-brands. Other then the fact that not all people know how to build computers.
 
Mindset said:
not to start another subject :D but why is it that I've always some how manage to see more dell's & compaq's go through the door for repairs, but yet people still buy name-brands. Other then the fact that not all people know how to build computers.
Click to expand...

Might be another subject ;) BUT, I'd agree. I recommended Dells for a bit, but no longer do. Never have recommended any other brand. Funny, we have an old Dell 486 here that STILL fires up and works. Also an old Pentium (first generation) Dell that still fires up. The one that was only 2 years old took a crap (this was recently) and had to be trashed. The motherboard decided to die and well, minds well get a whole new PC. Seems that the newer stuff isn't lasting as long as the older stuff. Maybe it's just my imagination...

So anyway, we were talking about PC or Mac for recording? :eek: :D
 
yeah I've noticed that, all the newer dell's/compaq's etc have some crap guts inside of them. Well that's what they do to lower the price of them for customer's to buy them. All the older dell's though, were great. Actually there's still like half of our user's comp's are older dells that haven't upgraded yet. Ironically, those are the ones that I rarely see.

But, on the subject of pc's or mac's for recording, both are great if you know how to use & configure them. Mac's hold the edge in the compitition though. Not for long though.
 
Why do you guys think that XP is so much better than 2k? I just have never seen enough improvment to warrant the CPU/mem overhead that XP has. I had one PC that was running XP for a while, but when it croaked I reloaded it with 2k. It wasn't XP's fault it croaked. I had a used hard drive in it from my junk drawer.

Seriously, what do you see as XP's advantage over 2k? I just don't see it. Particularly when it comes to networking.
 
cephus said:
Why do you guys think that XP is so much better than 2k? I just have never seen enough improvment to warrant the CPU/mem overhead that XP has. I had one PC that was running XP for a while, but when it croaked I reloaded it with 2k. It wasn't XP's fault it croaked. I had a used hard drive in it from my junk drawer.

Seriously, what do you see as XP's advantage over 2k? I just don't see it. Particularly when it comes to networking.
Click to expand...

different windows are used for different purposes (in regards to XP & 2K). The advantage of XP is that most consumer software products & hardware for that matter, are compatible with it, that's the main point of why XP would do better the 2K. 2K though, is a whole lot better for servers & workstations. I like 2k better than XP because it's also a little bit more stable than XP. It's concrete too. I agree with you though to a certain extent. but lets not get into the matter :D ;)
 
McParadigm said:
So if you were talking to someone who had a PC and a Mac, both nice, and was debating which to use what would you say?
Click to expand...

to use whatever supported the apps he was interested in, or was more comfortable with. There are no advantages, audio-wise to one vs the other.

(of course PC has Samp+Sequoia, which I see as a huge advantage.) :D
 
Dot said:
If you like to dick around with computers - get a PC. If you wanna make music without dicking around with the computer - get a Mac.
Click to expand...

That's it. Exactly. Why is this discussion still going on? :)
 
Get a PC and be happy. PC's are at least two steps ahead of Macs in development I think. I have three machines running with Windows XP. Not one crash since I went to XP three years ago.

Hans
 
here we go again.... :rolleyes: I think developmental wise, before, Mac's were ahead of PC's in the most aspects of speed wise. Back then, mac cpu's did more work per cycle then the pc counterparts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top