Why Mac computers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bball_1523
  • Start date Start date
elevate said:

Current Mac hardware does not meet the requirements of enterprise-level networks
Click to expand...

Oh, really? :confused: What level of enterprise networking are you talking about?
 
how is it that these debates always end up nasty? I guess they're kinda fun :D

I'm a network administrator (that wears many hats) - have been for about 7 years. I've had a limited number of Macs on an NT network with basic file & printer sharing, but not on an enterprise level.

Here's the thing... The argument that Macs work better is true BECAUSE it's a closed architecture. Introduce foriegn data and you're bound for the same crop of problems at PC's (I've lived this)

Macs will never be as widely accepted also, BECAUSE it's a closed architecture. PC's are plagued with problems because the world chooses it that way - more flexibility = more problems. You don't find many 16 year olds writing Mickey-Mouse shareware apps in C++ for Macs.

I'm on the same bandwagon as the majority - I choose the flexibility, and endless options along with the bug-laden problems with the PC. If you're an audio guy who doesn't need the flexibility and aren't using the computer for anything else, a Mac is probably a good choice - it's just not mine.
 
Macs out perform PC's?

For the $ PC's win hands down in the performance area... In fact you could have 3 dedicated PC's with the right Mobo combo for the $ of the top of the line Mac.

As far as a Mac being more stable... that was true until winodws XP.

The real question is.... What can a Mac do, audio wise, that a PC cannot? (and for less $$$)

Shred
 
brzilian said:


That was never and still not is the case from past and current personal experiences.

Try connecting a Mac to any kind of non-Mac network (which pretty much accounts for 99% of the LAN/WAN/VPN networks out there) and tell me it just works.

And before you decide to rebutt this comment, take a look at the importance of networks in a corporate environment as well as the emerging home networking (wired and wireless) markets.
Click to expand...

Actually, I integrated OSX into an NT domain far easier than XP. OSX immediately saw the domain, and mounted the network drive. XP on the other hand, because it was the home version, could not. Yet 98 could. Hmmmm. OSX just works. (This is a corporate network).

Monday I hooked up my friend's TiBook to my computer through crossover, to transfer audio. It just works.

Maybe you're having difficulties?

Also, last time I looked, this is homerecording.com, not corporatenetworking.com.

I don't think VPN compatibility weighs heavily with users looking at this forum.
 
Looking at this whole thread, it has turned into a sandbox fight over which platform is better, using imformation totally irrelevant to home audio recording.

It's personal preference people, friggin get over it.

Macs are good (for some). Wintels are good (for some).
 
Oh, really? What level of enterprise networking are you talking about?
Click to expand...
Enterprise. As in these machines, where the top performer has 272 PIII Xeons and carries a price tag of $10,603,803.
 
hey

will pro tools run on XP pro now??


i heard it would not run with xp pro just yet.
 
Yea, the LE version has been running on XP for a few months now.
 
elevate said:

Enterprise. As in these machines, where the top performer has 272 PIII Xeons and carries a price tag of $10,603,803.
Click to expand...

272? that's it? jeez, my Palm Pilot has more than that. hehehe
 
elevate said:

Enterprise. As in these machines, where the top performer has 272 PIII Xeons and carries a price tag of $10,603,803.
Click to expand...

Looks like they could save some cash by going with an X-serve based system. Over $4M of that system is software alone.:eek: :D

I doubt many people would buy something that that to run Nuendo or Sonor though. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top