Looked at the 2.3ghz mac mini? You'd get an old stock one on ebay for around £400.
That doesn't really work now, does it?
Just some posts from our own forum regarding the durability, ease of use, and superior quality of PCs:
https://homerecording.com/bbs/gener...dnt-[pro-tools-le-windows-8-16gb-ram]-353733/
I had a quick look and was amused to find that your very first example was somebody who had upgraded their version of Windows to one not yet supported by Protools.
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!!!
I had a quick look and was amused to find that your very first example was somebody who had upgraded their version of Windows to one not yet supported by Protools.
Have you honestly never seen the chaos that ensues every time Apple release their latest big cat? It takes months before every DAW manufacturer caters for the new Apple OS--and even longer before every hardware company releases drivers for the new OS.
The other thing to consider is that Window's based computers represent 88% of the market while Macs are only 12%. That means a ratio of 9 PC queries for every 1 Mac query says nothing about the relative reliability--it just reflects the number of machines out there.
The bottom line is that either can work fine. I use Windows at home and the theatre where I work sometimes uses Mac for playback. I've not found one to be more reliable or stable than the other.
That's just my favorite when someone links to a website/webpage without reading the content first...
If it weren't so late, I'd debunk his comment on "server-grade" vs "consumer-grade" and their relative costs, but it's late and I have audio classes in the morning... If I get bored tomorrow, maybe I'll come back.
How is that possible? Do you think the Apple logo makes the computer go faster? Given the same parts, it will run the same. A Mac is just a PC nowadays, they use the same parts you can buy from Amazon or Newegg or wherever. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
Overclocking via frequency muiltiplier doesn't reduce CPU lifetime, as long as you maintain acceptable operating temperature. It's messing with voltages that will kill a CPU, but it will still outlast the other parts of the PC (unless the changes made are too wild), and by then a replacement will be so cheap it won't matter (plus you're more likely to have upgraded by then anyway).
My 64-bit, 4 core, 16GB RAM Hackintosh scored 15074 on Geekbench when I ran it. That's higher than all the mid-2010 8 core Intel Xeon E5620 2400 MHz Mac Pros listed on the Geekbench website (model:"Mac Pro (Mid 2010)" platform:"Mac" processor:"Intel Xeon E5620" frequency:2400 bits:64) - Geekbench Search - Geekbench Browser and is similar to the six core Intel Xeon W3680 3330 MHz 2010 Mac Pros (model:"Mac Pro (Mid 2010)" platform:"Mac" processor:"Intel Xeon W3680" frequency:3330 bits:64) - Geekbench Search - Geekbench Browser. The latter generally has higher scores, but it has two more cores (4 more threads) and double the RAM, in the systems I inspected in more detail.
Looking at the numbers, it seems to me, that I'm getting a bit more juice out of my spec than the 2010 Mac Pros, probably due to my processor (Intel 2600K) being newer and running at 4.2GHz. So, overall I think that my Hackintosh is pretty consistent with real Mac performance - unsurprising as they're built with the same standard parts. My Hackintosh cost around £800 to build - the closest spec I could make at the time was around £2,000 from Apple, IIRC.
I wasn't building a PC to match the Mac Pro - the later ones have two (or more?) 6-core Xeon processors in - there's no reason to compete with that for a single processor DAW machine, but I could do it for way cheaper than Apple sell them for.
I'm not trying to argue which is better. One may be better suited to a particular person. I used to have Mac OS X and Windows 7 on the same machine (my first experience of OS X), but I found I prefer Windows, so I wiped the OS X partition. Windows 7 serves me very well and I have no problems with it.
I'm amused to find that because 1 out of the 7 examples I posted from the last 6 days has to do with someone who didn't read the system requirements info on software they installed disqualifies the other 86% If I were to just start making up figures, that means that 2% of the PC crowd aren't having problems with their machines... I'm willing to extend you a very minimal amount of credibility if you can site your figures to a reliable source. Besides the statement is so ambiguous it is clear that it's made up from the get go. What market? World computer market, professional computer recording market, at home hobby recording market, Queensland just upset and argumentative market?
For the first part you are misunderstanding, you took that quote out of context and it is making it confusing. What I was saying was, a latest production MacPro 8 core (2010) given the same amount of ram and the luxury of liquid cooling like the hack had will put up different numbers, better numbers than the hack... I was not saying with the SAME EXACT EQUIPMENT, just a production 2010 MP 8 core vs. the previously featured hack. The hack posted 17k which is on par with a 07-09 production 3.2GHz 8 core with the same ram and SSD/HDDs as the hack, that is all.
Those are some impressive numbers your hack is putting up. As for the price difference you are after all comparing a production Mac to a homebuilt hack (Mac). I am glad you were able to put your hack together for cheaper than a production Mac putting up similar numbers, that is the point of a home build... I'm glad you are having a solid experience with windows on your hack, I hope it stays reliable for you!!
There is a reason that things are cheaper for PCs. Sure you could build a PC with the same specs as any MacPro, as in same processor speed, amount of ram, etc... and the Mac will out perform the PC every time. The reason Macs cost more is because they use top of the line, non consumer grade hardware. Sure you can build a PC with the same grade hardware, and it will cost you the same as a Mac.
In what way? My analogy is perfectly sound.
Cheers
Ok, let's change the outcome of my analogy. The user drives the car, but fails to maintain the oil, the water, break pads, and filters. Is it a surprise when the car fails? Should the user still be allowed to be ignorant?
It doesn't work on any level.
You are required to train and pass a test in order to own a license to drive a car, which you still cannot do legally until you have paid for insurance.
How is that like using a computer?
All the adverts on TV for PC user magazines etc talking about how computing can be simple?
all the community college night classes aimed at pensioners?
The fact that they are used in schools?
It's not the same at all.
Using a computer incorrectly isn't likely to endanger life either.
When I recommend someone buy a mac I never see it again.
Broadly speaking a mac permits the user to be ignorant. I bet at least 9 out of 10 casual mac users don't know there's an equivalent to control-alt-delete........Seriously. I bet they have never seen the words 'failed to respond', and have never accepted turning it off and on again and acceptable troubleshooting.
I'm all for PCs in the right hands and I get that mac or PC can break anytime....That's life.
I agree that you can build your dream machine and it'll be amazing and cheaper and what not. I've been there.
Average Jo needs a mac though, IMO.
To be honest, you're kinda helping my point.
All that stuff seems to apply to microsoft OSs. Apparently you do need a good understanding of computers to work one.
My point is that it doesn't seem to apple to OSX, at least not on th same level.
I've converted maybe five or six people to apple recenty (all computer dummies) and I'll never see them again, at least not about fixing computers. When they ran windows setups I was sick of them.
Analogy still sucks though.
You're taught all that maintenance stuff in your legally required training.
I find OSX a far less intuitive than Win 7
Take, for example, adding a preset pack to a softsynth...windows: documents > synth > presets...on the MAC i tried under audio, library, support...eventually i had to google it
I don't think they're better man. I just think they're more accessible to casual users. There will always be exceptions but this has been my experience.i disagree with your statement...they are not better than Pcs,