PC vs. Mac (hahaha)

PC or Mac

  • PC

    Votes: 14 56.0%
  • Mac

    Votes: 11 44.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Status
Not open for further replies.
I started out recording on PC based systems using Cubase and Pro-tools (which ever was the first Maudio version they did) at uni and had a PC with Cakewalk at home for home recording. It wasn't until 2007 i moved over to macs mainly so that i could work on stuff at home from work as everything is mac based at work. However, after making the move i've never looked back. in my life i have experienced a lot of problems with Windows based PC's, not just in terms of audio recording but also in day to day use. However, over the past couple of years i've used a couple of well setup windows recording systems that have pleasantly surprised me and easily did everything my mac did (although both of them later developed horrific problems; one got a rebuild/update and is now fine, the other was trashed and replaced with an iMac) I'm more than happy using both systems, but my preference is still very much Mac. Saying that, i don't consider myself an "Apple Fanboy" (i know far too many). I hate the iPad (i still don't see the point!), i'm not a big fan of iPods, and the iPhone sucks IMO, but the Macbook Pro's are hard to beat for small, powerful laptops, and the Mac Pro's are just ridiculous for power if you so wish.

I have a friend who actually went the other way and went back to PC's after years of hardened apple fanboyism, but during his apple days he raised the point that for a Windows PC to compete with a Mac, you'd probably spend the same amount of money. Nowadays however, he simply refers to macs as "Standardised PC's" - you don't have to worry about how well your graphics card, cheap brand of RAM, 3rd party Wireless card will work because Apple have standardised what goes into their machines and made sure their software works perfectly with it all
 
I started out recording on PC based systems using Cubase and Pro-tools (which ever was the first Maudio version they did) at uni and had a PC with Cakewalk at home for home recording. It wasn't until 2007 i moved over to macs mainly so that i could work on stuff at home from work as everything is mac based at work. However, after making the move i've never looked back. in my life i have experienced a lot of problems with Windows based PC's, not just in terms of audio recording but also in day to day use. However, over the past couple of years i've used a couple of well setup windows recording systems that have pleasantly surprised me and easily did everything my mac did (although both of them later developed horrific problems; one got a rebuild/update and is now fine, the other was trashed and replaced with an iMac) I'm more than happy using both systems, but my preference is still very much Mac. Saying that, i don't consider myself an "Apple Fanboy" (i know far too many). I hate the iPad (i still don't see the point!), i'm not a big fan of iPods, and the iPhone sucks IMO, but the Macbook Pro's are hard to beat for small, powerful laptops, and the Mac Pro's are just ridiculous for power if you so wish.

I have a friend who actually went the other way and went back to PC's after years of hardened apple fanboyism, but during his apple days he raised the point that for a Windows PC to compete with a Mac, you'd probably spend the same amount of money. Nowadays however, he simply refers to macs as "Standardised PC's" - you don't have to worry about how well your graphics card, cheap brand of RAM, 3rd party Wireless card will work because Apple have standardised what goes into their machines and made sure their software works perfectly with it all

Ive bought two ipads as control surfaces


Look up v control pro, lemur, and touchable...these things are brilliant just for those three apps :thumbs up:
 
With ram, processor,and only a BOOT DRIVE,You are already at $3k+ without tax... nuff said!

As long as you restrict yourself to the dual core Xeon machines I'll concede your victory, but primarily because no other manufacturer is in that marketspace, mostly (I suspect) because there's not enough of a market to bother.

A hexacore Xeon processor in a consumer desktop is serious overkill for applications that don't involve rendering 4K RAW video.

And Newegg's price for that Xeon 3.1Ghz is way too high.
 
Ive bought two ipads as control surfaces


Look up v control pro, lemur, and touchable...these things are brilliant just for those three apps :thumbs up:

oooooh, the lemur app looks ace! i remember seeing the jazz mutant lemur's a couple of years back and thinking they were cool but horribly expensive (and i seem to remember them not being multitouch, but this was about 2007)

tbf, my cynicism of the iPad is mainly the mass market (for want of a better term) for them as, you're absolutely right, there are some cool music based apps for them. I've got a mate who uses one as a controller for live performances with Ableton, and another who uses it with a presonus Studiolive for the cool "mixing anywhere in the room" feature. But when they're not using it for those quite specific apps they barely use them. They both always say "yeah, but if i'm travelling i can watch a film or read an ebook or..... etc etc" and my point to them is always "yeah, but you already do all that on your phone; a device that fits neatly in your pocket and doesn't require you to carry a bag. And you look like less of a muppet checking you email on your phone in a pub than you do checking it on your iPad" :p
 
The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Yes there are a few optimizations in Windows for running a DAW but you can certainly run one without them. Windows is made to be highly configurable and allows for many under the hood tweaks. It also is vastly superior to Mac when it comes to backwards compatibility. On the flip side, along with other redundancies, this contributes to it being famous for being a platform that easily gets bogged down. Another thing is that Windows incorporates very advanced security features due, in large part, to it's widespread vulnerability. You just can't run Windows on the web without anti-virus software.

Mac OS is Unix- and therefore entirely file-based. It does not have a registry like Windows. It is not [as] vulnerable to viruses. It is designed to be tinker-proof and only offer you the features that you need to operate the OS (unless you know how to hack it). It does not include as many security features as Windows nor is it very backwards compatible, which lessens the load. That being said, that expensive software you bought for OSX has a lot shorter shelf life than the equivalent on Windows. Whenever there is an upgrade on the software or hardware side, you either have to pay for the upgrade or get stuck in the past. And if you wait too long, however, you'll find that your old software won't work on the newer machines because the new OS revision isn't compatible with it. If your old machine isn't strong enough to run the new OS, you might find that you need a new Mac altogether. I've seen these compatibility issues time and time again. Some software won't run altogether on brand new Macs so you better be careful when you upgrade. Ever wondered why you can get a Mac(book) for next to nothing on ebay? That's why. They become obsolete very quickly.

A study by a guy named Dong Ngo from CNET claimed that Windows actually ran graphics better than OSX (from wikivs.com):

While Mac OS X does have the benefit of faster startup and shutdown in many cases, as well as higher performance in many other areas, an article by CNET editor Dong Ngo suggests that graphics applications may run faster on Windows 7. [4]. This article describes a test in which benchmarking software was run on the same MacBook Pro both in pure (not virtual) Windows 7 and Mac OS X environments. According to Dong "Windows 7 noticeably outdoes Snow Leopard in the 3D image rendering benchmark." It is also noted on Call of Duty 4 that "Snow Leopard was always 5fps to 7fps slower than Windows 7."-Dong. The other areas of this test confirmed the better general performance of Mac OS X. His conclusion was that Windows 7 may be a better choice for gamers.

But that was Snow Leopard. I'm sure things are better now in Mountain Lion.

In any case, I found that people who think Windows is crap just don't know how to maintain it properly. I myself use all the major OS's (Windows, OS X, Linux, etc) but I sit here typing this on an XP machine that was installed about 6 years ago (my old studio machine that I now use at home). It's a core2duo E6600 2.4GHz, which is still ok for my audio needs and it runs with 35 processes in the task manager at idle (even with anti-virus installed). It is SOOOO stable and I never have problems with it. Why? I know how to keep it clean and don't let it get bogged down. It's connected to the internet 24/7, too. No problem there either because my anti-virus is up to date.

So, at this point in time, whether you choose Mac or Windows is entirely a matter of taste.

Just my 2c (ZAR).

Cheers :)
 
I'm not saying that all components don't originate in the same production plants whether they are for PC or Mac. What I said was production MacPros are built with SERVER grade hardware not CONSUMER grade hardware. You CAN build a PC with the same SPECS as a MacPro i.e. processor SPEED, AMOUNT of ram, etc. The MacPro will beat out the CHEAPER PC EVERY TIME.

Um, not true.

Check out this thread over at the purple place (disclaimer: This is an argument about HARDWARE. The fact this is a hackintosh makes no difference):

Pro Tools 10 on Hackintosh running 2000 plugins - Gearslutz.com

Cheers :)
 
Um, not true.

Check out this thread over at the purple place (disclaimer: This is an argument about HARDWARE. The fact this is a hackintosh makes no difference):

Pro Tools 10 on Hackintosh running 2000 plugins - Gearslutz.com

Cheers :)


What exactly is the point of this video in the argument, I pulled one proven truth from it. 'The geekbench is 17.3k, that is ABOUT the equivalent 8 core MacPro'

That is quoted from the video...

Congratulations guy, you built a hackintosh 2 weeks ago that isn't even on par with a 4-5 year old MacPro with a little more than half of your processor speed...
 
There have been numerous technology articles debunking the myth of a PC being cheaper than a Mac. An equivalent pre-built PC almost always equals the similar Mac. In fact, some of Apple's laptops are cheaper than their PC counterparts.

You can save money by building the PC yourself, sure. Plenty of people don't have the time, inclination, or interest in building computers. I used to love building and tweaking them. Then I got a Mac. Now instead of tweaking and breaking and rebuilding my Windows box, I just USE the Mac.

Windows has always been better for offices, corporations, accounting, GAMES... Macs have always excelled at the creative arts. Nothing wrong with using either, but it's just the way they're built and the way the OSes are designed. Windows is making huge strides, though.
 
I don't care what anyone says. The more people I can convert to apple the better.

It means I actually get some f'n peace and quiet instead of having to fix everyone's computer 6 monthly.
 
I don't care what anyone says. The more people I can convert to apple the better.

It means I actually get some f'n peace and quiet instead of having to fix everyone's computer 6 monthly.

hahaha! Are you the one everyone goes to with the most stupidest of problems as well!

I'm a PC user, for the fact that it is what I have at my disposal. It's an old machine, P4 2.8GHz 3.5Gb RAM - I can do more than enough tracks than I'll probably ever need. 24+ Tracks is plenty for me. Curiously, I have never used a Mac to record. I've been in studios and played into them and seen them at work but never had hands on work.

What you've never had you never miss I guess. Maybe one day. For me, for now, a crappy old PC will do.
 
Conversely, the more Macs sold, the more attractive target they are to hackers and script kiddies creating malware. The Mac's supposed resistance to viruses and malware is down purely to sales not hitting a critical mass. There have already been some exploits targeting the Mac and this number will only go up as sales do.
 
Conversely, the more Macs sold, the more attractive target they are to hackers and script kiddies creating malware. The Mac's supposed resistance to viruses and malware is down purely to sales not hitting a critical mass. There have already been some exploits targeting the Mac and this number will only go up as sales do.

Again, you're right there.
I mean, people have been saying that for a long time and it still hasn't become a real issue, but I don't doubt that it will someday.

There's an irony here though....
The number of windows machines I get that have slowed down and become clogged with crap.
Admittedly that fall greatly on user ignorance, but a user should be allowed to be ignorant.

Anyway, for simplicity and for my own time's sake, I back up their crap and reinstall windows.
Usually at least a few hours is spent backing up their stuff, tracing down drivers and programs that they use etc etc.

With a mac I literally just drag the home folder and the applications folder onto an external hard drive, reinstall osx (20 mins) then drag it back.
Once in a blue moon you have to copy something from library/application support, BUT I don't remember ever having to do any of this for anyone.

I think that's why I favour them; They favour the ignorant.

Out of interest, is there a convenient time machine equivalent for windows? Something that will auto backup everything? Pics, music, etc?
 
What exactly is the point of this video in the argument, I pulled one proven truth from it. 'The geekbench is 17.3k, that is ABOUT the equivalent 8 core MacPro'

That is quoted from the video...

Congratulations guy, you built a hackintosh 2 weeks ago that isn't even on par with a 4-5 year old MacPro with a little more than half of your processor speed...

First off, if you read my other post, I am not arguing one way or the other. If you want to be a Mac fanboy, go ahead. I was arguing your statement that Macs kill PC's because of their "server-grade" hardware.

The section I was talking about was here:

DimaK415 - Gearslutz said:
Well, I can confidently say that all rumors point to Crapple using the E5 Sandy bridge (Xeons) for their next gen Mac Pros.

The upside:
Extremely powerful (up to 10 cores per CPU... 20 Cores = 40 threads)
...

The Downside:
Holy smokes are they expensive. I can build an E5 hackintosh now. Base parts will run about $4000 for the top of the line with 16 cores, $6000 if we outfit it with lots of sexy ram and SSDs and Barracudas. Factor in the brushed steel and sexy case design and you're looking at close to $7k)

So I'll break it down like this:
Price points with max ram, fastest CPU, SSD, 2 2tb, 1 1tb drives for both Hack and Mac-
Mac
Current Westmere 12 core mac Pro: $9,649.00 Geekbench 24,000
6 Core Mac Pro: $5,474.00 Geekbench 11,000
27" Imac (only 1 drive): $3,496 Geekbench 12,500 (cannot be upgraded but comes with nice 27" screen)

Hack
12 Core Westmere Hack: $5,000-$6,000 Geekbench 36,000
16 Core E5 Hack: $5000-$6,000 Geekbench almost 40,000 *no mach kernel for these so NullCPUPowermanagment is required :(
The above Hackintosh: $2,500 Geekbench 17,000

A savings of almost $4000 is huge. Yes, the one in the OP of that thread came in at 17,000 with Geekbench but a PC Hack built with 16 Core E5's is 40,000. What is the current top of the line Mac? Last I checked it was only 12 core...

Cheers :)
 
Again, you're right there.

The number of windows machines I get that have slowed down and become clogged with crap.
Admittedly that fall greatly on user ignorance, but a user should be allowed to be ignorant.

In the same way that you can give a car to someone who doesn't know how to drive a car and then be all surprised when they wreck it?

And IMO, the easiest way for both PC and Mac is to image the system drive and restore when it craps out.

Cheers :)
 
What exactly is the point of this video in the argument, I pulled one proven truth from it. 'The geekbench is 17.3k, that is ABOUT the equivalent 8 core MacPro'

That is quoted from the video...

Congratulations guy, you built a hackintosh 2 weeks ago that isn't even on par with a 4-5 year old MacPro with a little more than half of your processor speed...

I largely agree with you though I question your assertion (not that I'm going to bother to research it) that the guy in the build is matching 5 y.o. tech. No question that the Xeon processors are the most generally available kick-ass processors currently extant, and no question that Apple is the only manufacturer using them in a consumer desktop. Nonetheless using that tech for audio processing is akin to buying a Bugatti Veyron so as to get to the house next door as quickly as possible.
 
I have pretty much everything Apple have come out with, but i only use PCs and ipads for music...for the price the performance is just not there, my PC rig kills my imac, my laptop kills my macbooks, hell even my sony mp3 players less hassle than itunes

I replaced my macbookpro with a sony viao...its was way cheaper and way more powerful...and when i kill it, or it becomes obsolete, itll hurt a lot less replacing it

Not saying theyre not rock solid most of the time, but if you dont mind some setting up, and/or troubleshooting, then theres way more bang for your buck in PCs

One more thing, how long has mountain lion been out yet some manufacturers still havent updated their drivers, i couldnt get my Air to recognise my usb hub or...Win7 is solid and if its supported as long as XP then im happy..apple change OS way too often I reckon

In this time, everyboday often use Apple for listening music. But not me. I only PC it I very like when hear with big volume.
 
First off, if you read my other post, I am not arguing one way or the other. If you want to be a Mac fanboy, go ahead. I was arguing your statement that Macs kill PC's because of their "server-grade" hardware.

The section I was talking about was here:



A savings of almost $4000 is huge. Yes, the one in the OP of that thread came in at 17,000 with Geekbench but a PC Hack built with 16 Core E5's is 40,000. What is the current top of the line Mac? Last I checked it was only 12 core...

Cheers :)

The video has proof, you see the kid run the benchmark test, and then see the results. I'm sorry, but copying and pasting the garbage some (Cr)Apple hater posts in another forum is as ridiculous as comparing the price of a HOMEBUILT computer to that of a PRODUCTION computer. If it is fact, this person should have no problem posting a video showing the benchmark tests being performed. Hell the other kid was very excited to put up his video of the several thousand dollar hack he built recently to the performance of a Mac that was outdated 3 years ago (if Macs aren't better machines, why are both the PC fanboys and hacks using MacPros as their benchmark??)
Aside from the fact that the Apple prices the poster claims are inflated by up to 40% and all the performance 'stats' are made up...

I largely agree with you though I question your assertion (not that I'm going to bother to research it) that the guy in the build is matching 5 y.o. tech. No question that the Xeon processors are the most generally available kick-ass processors currently extant, and no question that Apple is the only manufacturer using them in a consumer desktop. Nonetheless using that tech for audio processing is akin to buying a Bugatti Veyron so as to get to the house next door as quickly as possible.

2010 was the last production year for 8 core MacPros, that being said, a 2010 MacPro loaded with the same ram, drives, liquid cooling, etc. as the hack would geekbench about 5k+ more than the hack. I can't give an exact number, as I don't a machine of that spec to run the test on to prove it, but if you go to geekbench's site, you can see what 2010 8 core MacPros are posting with setups less preferred than the hack, which will support what I posted...

A 2007-09 MacPro with 32GB ram and SSDs with an UN-OVERCLOCKED (read STRESSED AS HELL[read, I'm sure that processor will last a really long time!!!]) 3.2GHz processor will put up 17k+ geekbench score. Again I site geekbench's site with proven test results, you can check it out for yourself!!!

That is where my comment comes from...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top