PC vs MAC

[Spastik]

I have heard that the reason MACs are used for PRO Tools and a normal PC is left behind is because the PCs are not powerful enough. But here at work I am using a PC and everywhere else that needs to have power to run really complex programs like SAP use PCs. You would think a dual 1.7 or 2 gig processor and 2 gig of RAM would kick the crap out of a mac, and if not then why the hell did they buy me a PC at work.

I would really hate to go out and buy a friggin G4 dual and get pro tolls mix3 and have them finally come out with a PC version in 6 months.

Could someone enlighten me? Please use actual fact and not Applz R 3l33t and PCs are teh suk type crap.

:D

[atma]

ya, i also wonder why people say macs are better for pro audio. the only kinds of reasons i seem to hear are along the lines of "well, aphex twin uses a mac!"

[synesthesia]

unfortunately, it all depends on how you want to measure it.

there are large PC's out there that will 'kick the crap' out of Mac's... in terms of 'flops' or calculations per second. unfortunately there's a lot more to it than that. on a PC you'd want to look at specs on your frontside bus, and what your ram is capable of (SD, DDR RD) etc etc.

then there's the issue of OS - which is more stable? which is more efficient? i think if software was being made for Linux, there wouldn't be nearly the same debate over platforms. what the hell happened to BeOS anyway? (i mean, they're using it in daw's - why didn't it fly?)

[Geeheeb]

Well, as far as speed goes: most mac users are brainwashed to think that for every PC (well, x86 which means AMD, Intel, and a few others) megahertz, an apple will outperform it with only half the clock speed behind it. Not true. Most of the comparisons that are used are taken from advertisments, and other sources that neglect to mention that most programs for the mac (like ProTools and Photoshop, the two most common programs used as examples, which aren't really valid benchmarking programs anyway) are written using highly optimized, proprietary code for the mac, and then sloppily ported to the x86 arctecture. The wintel platform uses a slew of different hardware (motherboards, processors, graphics cards, soundcards, etc.) whereas apple is set. You don't find a tenth of the diversity of products in a mac, which for developers, is a good thing, meaning they don't have to write for all those different situations, bloating the code, and making it much more inefficient. This also tends to lend more stability.

There are a few areas where I think PCs KILL Macs: Price, "hot-rodding", os and program costs, and general diversity. There are a lot more programs and operating systems that run on an x86 than a mac. And if you know what you are doing, your pc can be just as stable as that mac. No, PC-DAW's aren't for everyone, but they can be just as rewarding as macs these days IMO. That wasn't the case just two years ago though.

What happened to BeOS? Be Inc turned to the internet appliance realm, as it was a lot more lucrative. Well, they ran out of money because no one needed them (yet). They were a few years ahead of their time. People still develop programs for Be, and there are some Be-like OSs out there like AtheOS, and BlueOS. Check them out, and tell your friends.

[DAS]

Actually there are lots of programs that run faster on a Mac than they do on "comparable" PC's, but there are certainly many more variables than clock speed.

There is also the whole ease of use and cost of ownership issue...

[Spastik]

With the new northwoods processors coming out the first quarter of next year, I would like to see the AMD and mac heads out there some up with anything close to that speed. 2.5ghz and a HUGE cache, muahaha. Linux would definately be the best way to go stability wise, but I have been using win 98 SE and haven't had a hickup with Cubase. The only problems I was having was when I was tracking drums (took up 14 channels) and the guy was takin way to damn long so I was updating my web page and checking my E-mail while playing Asheron's call in the background over my Cable modem. I had a bit of a hickup then, but it was my fault for not just concentrating on the drums. I think digidesign will see the light and make a windows version soon, god I hope they do. Think how fast a Mix3 on a dual 2 gig Northwoods with 4 gig of RDRAM on a 15k rpm HD, how can Mac come close to that, or AMD for that matter.

[DAS]

It's logical to assume those companies aren't going to roll over and play dead any more than Intel did when AMD and Mac we're kicking their behinds. There will always be innovation, and with it problems (lets not forget all the problems getting music hardware to work with these brand new machines), but no company is likely to get an all out "win" anytime soon. We shouldn't be so naive to think that Apple and AMD don't have developments in the works that may leapfrog this technology.

[synesthesia]

haven't heard of the northwoods stuff (like the guitar company? ;) ) anyone know what bus speed it's running at?

-stef

[howeedoo]

well from my experience and from all ive read macs process data in 128 bit chunks which make them more powerfull then pc's. I'm not completely sure how fast pentiums process data, i think pentium 4's process at 64 bit chunks. Wich basicaly means that a mac can take the same amount of data as a pc and handle it with much more power wich means less hickups, but pentiums run fast, its not always the processor thats causing problems in systems its your components. If you have a daw system and have a great sound card, great modem, great midi interface then you probably having problems. modems and high quality sound cards dont mix (from my experience and info from some great engineers ive spoken too). And as far as hard drives, i like using scsi it seems to be much faster. I was told controller cards help alot bcuz they have processors on them wich take up some of the stress on your cpu when u get in to using lots of effects and lots of audio tracks at the same time your basically draining your processor so what ive found was to add components that were powerfull like pulsar2 card for processing effects and adaptec scsi card to control my hard drive to releive some of the stress on my processor i also use a midi time piece av for midi interfacing, and i think one of the most important things is that i have two computers, one for music and the other for surfing the net and what ever else i wanna do besisdes music.

no modem on my daw just heavy duty components that a daw should only have, and loooots of ram the more memory the better.
I have a pent 4 1.7 , 20 gig 7200 rpm drive, 1 gig ram, second drive only for audio tracks! 10,000 rpm seagate cheetah scsi, adaptec 29160 card, matrox dual g450 grafix card, echo mona 24/96 sound card, i use dvd ram for storage. I use cakewalk pro 9
wich is much better than version 8 more stable.
my system is pretty smooth it does what i need it to do...