JimmyS1969
MOODerator
Can't anyone just load Windows on a partition on a mac and use whatever works in any given situation? Just curious. 
Steenamaroo
...
Can't anyone just load Windows on a partition on a mac and use whatever works in any given situation? Just curious.
Yeah, you can certainly do that. Apple supplied 'boot camp' to make it straight forward.
They also put together driver packs for each MS OS.
I've never used it, but I can see it being popular amongst gamers who use logic, or whatever.
J
jonny deep
Disappointing Member
I installed Windows on my MacBook Air for a while. I deleted the partition in the end as I didn't need it, but it sure is possible and very easy to do.
YanKleber
Retired
Can't anyone just load Windows on a partition on a mac and use whatever works in any given situation? Just curious.
You can. And also do the contrary: it is just to install VMWare on a PC and then put a MacOS. You don't even have to reboot your computer because it will run within Windows. Actually with VMWare you don't even create a partition as it creates a virtual machine with a virtual partition within your existing partition. Anyway, since Macs started to use Intel based CPUs they became PCs tweaked to use Mac OS. LoL! This is the reason why either modern Macs and PCs can run software from each other with small hacks.
However, it doesn't make any sense do this to run everyday software. Who sticks to a PC or a Mac did this for a reason so they should use the exact software for it. I think that the point is turn things more simple and easy and not overcomplicate them.
Steenamaroo
...
It does start to get complicated. It's not that common but apple can/will block your applied use with messages/facetime etc if they get repeat reports of access from a non-existent or suspicious serial number.
Because all apple machines have unique serials and hardware ID's, they know exactly what machine is doing what.
Even people who've had their apple logic boards replaced have had to get their account status reset on occasion.
There are always hacks and work arounds but they require you to be on top of things and know what you're up to.
Keep it simple - Buy what you like.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
If you want to record and mix music rather than play fancy computer games, just buy whatever you're comfortable with...and whatever your budget will stretch to. I've used both, don't mind either but tend to buy Windows because it's cheaper and I can get more for my money. Sort of contradictory to my opening line, the quid pro quo for using Windows is that I have to be willing to do a bit more set up for myself but there are internet guides on setting up for audio and, once done (work of a few minutes) I rarely have to tweak anything.
However, if you currently use a Mac OS machine, stick with that and avoid the learning curve.
Nowadays it really doesn't matter. Both can function well as an audio work station.
However, if you currently use a Mac OS machine, stick with that and avoid the learning curve.
Nowadays it really doesn't matter. Both can function well as an audio work station.
YanKleber
Retired
Keep it simple - Buy what you like.
Or just don't buy ANYTHING! Use whatever you ALREADY HAVE!
H
hellstens
New member
Why not go for the best of both worlds, building a Hackintosh! Sheep as a PC, good as a Mac, or even better ;-)
G
gvdv
Member
I am a Windows guy, but have worked with macs in the past as well. I must say, Mac is much easier if you are just starting out and have no preference.
Most DAWs will work either way. Interfaces work both ways (some have both USB & Firewire). Thunderbolt, BTW, has had a lot of issues with Windows based machines. Firewire, as well has problems unless you get a certified TI card. Best in the Windows environment to stick to USB/PCIe. Mac can use all if they have the ports (some no longer have USB)
Your external equipment, of course, will not be affected.
So, unless you're intent on going with Garage Band or Logic Pro you can use a Windows PC and get the flexibility (and the headaches) of the open architecture. You are likely to spend less, but you might get lesser quality, depending on the builder. Most of us have dedicated PCs for recording and keep them away from internet (for the most part) so we can control upgrades and other such nonsense that slow or corrupt our systems.
Unless you are looking at FLStudio, you can use a Mac and get the structured support of Apple's proprietary hardware and (mostly) trouble free upgrade paths. You may spend a little more, but in the long run, it might be worth a few less headaches.
Happy Recording
Like BroKen_H, I, too, am mostly a Windows guy, but have used Mac almost exclusively for tracking.
In fact, quite a number of years ago I spent an incredible amount of money on a Mac Pro (that's the tower, not Macbook Pro) because, after years of research I had concluded that there were (then) so many conflicts in the Windows environment that the Mac environment sounded simpler.
I was right, and wrong.
Right in the longer run, but at the time that I bought my Mac (around 2007) the chipset was having problems with some audio interfaces, and the expensive (firewire) audio interface that I bought (Presonus Firestudio) would suddenly stop working at times when tracking (loved the preamps, though).
I also had problems getting used to the Mac OS - I wanted more control than one is afforded in OS X (I have been using computers since before DOS!), and also was frustrated at how illogical things are (as they are in Windows, too, but I was used to Windows).
Now, though, I am happy.
I think that the quality of audio interfaces has improved, so I have no issues with the five or so I now own (they are all USB).
I do love GarageBand for its simplicity, and one can do a surprising amount with it (but the current version seems to have oversimplified things, so I use the previous version). Also, GB comes with quite a few loops, and has the requisite FX's, so making it a fairly complete DAW (although nowhere near as comprehensive or 'deep' as others).
And there are, of course, other DAWs which are available for Windows and OSX.
For example, Reaper looks and functions the same in both platforms, and can be used on a trial basis until you decide that you want to contribute financially to its developers (unfortunately, there are very few effects, and no loops so you would have to find and download those separately).
There are some excellent, very cheap audio interfaces - specifically, the Steinberg UR22 and Roland Tri-Capture (both of which I bought - for different reasons - recently - see my recent posts about these if you are interested).
The one word of caution I would give is to do your research (like you have done by posting your question in this thread).
Because I bought the then top-of-the-line Mac, I do not know, for example, how current all-in-one Macs differ in performance (i.e., whether they can cope as well or better, or worse, with latency as my computer).
Good luck with your search and decision and let us know what you decide.
gvdv
YanKleber
Retired
It's not that simple. To build a Hackintosh is not a trivial job. First you have to find the proper hardware since it's not ANY PC motherboard that will work for this purpose. Also the installation of the MacOS may be a pain in the ass and you will have to deal with boot failures, freezes, crashes and such. Finally, if you manage to get everything working with your MacOS version you don't have any guarantee that it will keep working with the next version of the OS (or even with earlier versions). Yeah, looking at Google you will find a few sites with lists of mother boards that works with what OS version. Also, it is not to only to put the MacOS Cd in the drive, seat back and watch while it installs. The whole process is very tedious and complicated (almost impossible for the regular user) demaning cracks, hacks and tricks: miss just one step and you have to start over.
What I mean is that to build a Hackintosh is not a task for whose is after a MacIntosh for everyday work but for geeks that wants to have some fun on breaking barriers. Basically the Hackintosh raised from the idea of prove that a PC hardware could host Apple operating system and not actually make it an useable platform. As I have mentioned before since Macs starting to use Intel based CPUs they became very close to PCs, but still there is a long way before to tell that you can make your own Mac at home.
I have turned one of my PCs in a Hackintosh once just to see if it would work, but after I removed it. I sincerelly wouldn't rely on such Frankenstein to put all my important work on it. Seriously, if you really want to run a Mac into a PC hardware I would say that a virtual machine is a too much easier and safer solution. Nowadays the PCs are so fast that you even won't notice that you are running an OS within Windows.
As a final note, and as Paul mentioned above, with a Hackintosh you cannot be part of the true Apple community because it is controlled through serial numbers. From the point of view of the USER a Hackintosh is a silly machine as it doesn't offer you any leverage. Today I only see two types of users for Macs: people that always used them and are very used to the platform so they simply doesn't want to change and people that likes the Apple status/community stuff. If you are in one of both teams, just buy a Mac. If not, stick with a PC.
Steenamaroo
...
Generally people want something they can rely on for professional, or even hobby, media.
The main arguments for apple are usually the closed set of hardware that's available, which minimises compatibility issues,
and the sheer simplicity of maintenance which results from that.
Hackintosh is a pretty bad solution for a low maintenance, reliable, studio computer for the average user. Just like linux.
Admittedly the whole setup is a lot more user friendly these days, because a community of dedicated hobbyists have developed automated tools to do most of the work for you, but if you hit an incompatible chipset somewhere along the line you're up shit creek.
There are enough users out there who can't manage to buy compatible hardware for their windows setups, without throwing hackintosh into the mix.
FWIW, I ran osx86 between 10.4.* and the start of 10.9. I don't think I ever recommended it to anyone, though.
I'm aware that I'm not the average user.
augustheat
New member
.......
......
......
Last edited:
Steenamaroo
...
That's interesting to hear.
I recently bought an early 2009 mac pro with the CPU upgrades. The 8th most powerful apple computer available right now, according to geek bench. I knew I wanted a powerful setup and researching the specs and benchmarks told me that it wasn't worth buying anything younger. At least not now! Obviously your machine was the dog's dick when you got it.
There are now iMacs and macbook pros which are more powerful that the 07/08 mac pros, so it does seem like they entire range has come a long way in 5 years.
Funny to hear you had firewire issues. That's usually my strong arguing point in favour of apple.
Maybe they are just shit after all?
H
hellstens
New member
Well I have use it the last 6 years for music, and Newer have a fail, or screen of death, that I have TO much in windows.
The thing is I don't upgrade my system as soon it coming a new OS, I wait to every thing works. It is stable like a rock! I use 10.8.5, and Don't gone upgrade.
OK if you own a Studio then I can understand, but if you, like me, a poor home maker who Love to Mix Master, it is Perfect.
Just build it after recommendation on the hardware,
then you safe, and free to upgrade your hardware when you need or want.
Steenamaroo
...
Yeah, there's a fair argument for both sides.
If you prepared to do the research and be sensible about upgrades etc, you can certainly get a good stable system on the go as I did.
Running Leopard on a q9550 was probably the best and most stable setup I ever had!
The hackintosh forums are littered with people who just buy stuff and expect it to work, or expect someone else to do it all for them.
I think it's worth popping a disclaimer in.
To be fair, once it's up and running it's gold. If you don't update anything that bad boy's good for life without any real maintenance.
As mentioned, some of the apple online services can make life difficult, but there's a workaround for every problem.
YanKleber
Retired
I really would like to believe on it.
Anyway, all in all a Hackintosh falls in the very same anti-crack philosophy of the forum.
Steenamaroo
...
Anyway, all in all a Hackintosh falls in the very same anti-crack philosophy of the forum.
Technically I don't think it does.
It's a breech of Apple's EULA which people interpret in different ways, but you can legally buy a copy of OSX and run it on a PC without using any illegal cracks or patches.
Many hackintosh enthusiasts pride themselves on preparing their machine to accept a vanilla (unaltered) OSX install.
Nothing has been stolen or illegally obtained, which seems to be the main frowned-upon thing.
Now, if you're downloading a pre-patched distro or something that's a different story.
YanKleber
Retired
You can buy legally a copy of their OS but it doesn't mean that you are allowed to run it other than on an original Mac.
As far as I can understand when you build a Hackintosh you are 'cracking' a system to accept an OS that supposely shouldn't.
What I mean is: try to put in the market a Hackintosh and wait to see if Apple won't fall over you with all their rage.
Steenamaroo
...
You don't have to crack anything.
The right boot loader and hardware will install OSX Vanilla straight from the CD.
That's a completely different thing.
No one is here is setting up a retail outlet.
YanKleber
Retired
You definitively didn't get my point. I won't keep arguing with semantics.
Never mind and carry on.
Never mind and carry on.