I find that design, user friendliness and second hand market prices make up for the premium you pay for Macs
Grottyash:
You can use your iphone or some models of ipod as remote for any mac, which, for playing music, is very handy.
OSX uses a flavour of UNIX underneath, which means most, if not all, UNIX/LINUX programmes work on a mac.
Finally, virtualbox or similar allow you to run Windows 7 in a window just like any other programme. I don't recall Windows machines having that capability with OSX.
Oh, and macs are intrinsically cooler than any PC yet made
.
PCs can also be remote controlled by a phone, iphone, pda - its nothing new and has been available for > 10 years.
The only reason u cant have OSx installed within Windows is that Apples End User Agreement prohibits running Apple OS on non-Apple Hardware. U can install Linux within windows for example.
OSX does not run virutally any Linux App - u still have to recompile or run an emulator.
You can use your iphone or some models of ipod as remote for any mac, which, for playing music, is very handy.
OSX uses a flavour of UNIX underneath, which means most, if not all, UNIX/LINUX programmes work on a mac.
Finally, virtualbox or similar allow you to run Windows 7 in a window just like any other programme. I don't recall Windows machines having that capability with OSX.
Oh, and macs are intrinsically cooler than any PC yet made
PCs can also be remote controlled by a phone, iphone, pda - its nothing new and has been available for > 10 years.
The only reason u cant have OSx installed within Windows is that Apples End User Agreement prohibits running Apple OS on non-Apple Hardware. U can install Linux within windows for example.
OSX does not run virutally any Linux App - u still have to recompile or run an emulator.
TechMad:Grottyash:
You can use your iphone or some models of ipod as remote for any mac, which, for playing music, is very handy.
OSX uses a flavour of UNIX underneath, which means most, if not all, UNIX/LINUX programmes work on a mac.
Finally, virtualbox or similar allow you to run Windows 7 in a window just like any other programme. I don't recall Windows machines having that capability with OSX.
Oh, and macs are intrinsically cooler than any PC yet made .
PCs can also be remote controlled by a phone, iphone, pda - its nothing new and has been available for > 10 years.
The only reason u cant have OSx installed within Windows is that Apples End User Agreement prohibits running Apple OS on non-Apple Hardware. U can install Linux within windows for example.
OSX does not run virutally any Linux App - u still have to recompile or run an emulator.No, for many you do not.
You can use your iphone or some models of ipod as remote for any mac, which, for playing music, is very handy.
OSX uses a flavour of UNIX underneath, which means most, if not all, UNIX/LINUX programmes work on a mac.
Finally, virtualbox or similar allow you to run Windows 7 in a window just like any other programme. I don't recall Windows machines having that capability with OSX.
Oh, and macs are intrinsically cooler than any PC yet made .
PCs can also be remote controlled by a phone, iphone, pda - its nothing new and has been available for > 10 years.
The only reason u cant have OSx installed within Windows is that Apples End User Agreement prohibits running Apple OS on non-Apple Hardware. U can install Linux within windows for example.
OSX does not run virutally any Linux App - u still have to recompile or run an emulator.No, for many you do not.
Grottyash:TechMad:Grottyash:
You can use your iphone or some models of ipod as remote for any mac, which, for playing music, is very handy.
OSX uses a flavour of UNIX underneath, which means most, if not all, UNIX/LINUX programmes work on a mac.
Finally, virtualbox or similar allow you to run Windows 7 in a window just like any other programme. I don't recall Windows machines having that capability with OSX.
Oh, and macs are intrinsically cooler than any PC yet made
.
PCs can also be remote controlled by a phone, iphone, pda - its nothing new and has been available for > 10 years.
The only reason u cant have OSx installed within Windows is that Apples End User Agreement prohibits running Apple OS on non-Apple Hardware. U can install Linux within windows for example.
OSX does not run virutally any Linux App - u still have to recompile or run an emulator.No, for many you do not.
U use x11 to run linux apps dont u - what do u think that is if its not an emulator?
You can use your iphone or some models of ipod as remote for any mac, which, for playing music, is very handy.
OSX uses a flavour of UNIX underneath, which means most, if not all, UNIX/LINUX programmes work on a mac.
Finally, virtualbox or similar allow you to run Windows 7 in a window just like any other programme. I don't recall Windows machines having that capability with OSX.
Oh, and macs are intrinsically cooler than any PC yet made
PCs can also be remote controlled by a phone, iphone, pda - its nothing new and has been available for > 10 years.
The only reason u cant have OSx installed within Windows is that Apples End User Agreement prohibits running Apple OS on non-Apple Hardware. U can install Linux within windows for example.
OSX does not run virutally any Linux App - u still have to recompile or run an emulator.No, for many you do not.
U use x11 to run linux apps dont u - what do u think that is if its not an emulator?
U are claiming that linux/unix apps runs natively on Mac OSX - they dont - u have to RECOMPILE them, as I stated earlier.
This is why u have porting projects such as Fink to provide OSX/Darwin builds of popular apps.
This is why u have porting projects such as Fink to provide OSX/Darwin builds of popular apps.
TechMad:
U are claiming that linux/unix apps runs natively on Mac OSX - they dont - u have to RECOMPILE them, as I stated earlier.
This is why u have porting projects such as Fink to provide OSX/Darwin builds of popular apps.
You can't keep moving the goal posts. Let's leave this, it's not helping anyone - and I suspect you know what I mean just as I know what you mean.
U are claiming that linux/unix apps runs natively on Mac OSX - they dont - u have to RECOMPILE them, as I stated earlier.
This is why u have porting projects such as Fink to provide OSX/Darwin builds of popular apps.
You can't keep moving the goal posts. Let's leave this, it's not helping anyone - and I suspect you know what I mean just as I know what you mean.
steve_1979
Well-known member
Ahhh the never ending Mac vs PC debate.... IMO they are both very good in slightly different ways and they both have different strengths and weaknesses. It depends on what you use your computer for and your own personal tastes.
I use my computer for playing games alot which mean a PC is the only logical choice for me for several reasons. Firstly my overclocked £1000 PC is more than twice as fast as any Mac ever made, even their new top of the range model with all the upgrades. Secondly Macs don't have as many games available for them. Thirdly a PC is much better for upgrading, in 2 years time if I want a faster computer I can just buy a new processor or graphics card but if you want a faster Mac you need to buy a new one (you can upgrade the RAM or hard drive but that all). Also I find with PC's you have a bit more flexability and choice and there are more accessories that can be used with them.
I still think Macs are better at some things though. After my girlfriends second PC broke down I advised her to try a Mac next time because they're more reliable, quieter, run cooler, easier to use, look very cool and I like the funky mouse they have.
Personally for me I will always use a PC for the reasons listed above. However, if you want a stylish looking computer under your TV next to you AV equiptment a Mac would probably be a better choice on looks alone. Soundwise there should be no difference between them if you use a digital optcal cable together with an external DAC or receiver.
I use my computer for playing games alot which mean a PC is the only logical choice for me for several reasons. Firstly my overclocked £1000 PC is more than twice as fast as any Mac ever made, even their new top of the range model with all the upgrades. Secondly Macs don't have as many games available for them. Thirdly a PC is much better for upgrading, in 2 years time if I want a faster computer I can just buy a new processor or graphics card but if you want a faster Mac you need to buy a new one (you can upgrade the RAM or hard drive but that all). Also I find with PC's you have a bit more flexability and choice and there are more accessories that can be used with them.
I still think Macs are better at some things though. After my girlfriends second PC broke down I advised her to try a Mac next time because they're more reliable, quieter, run cooler, easier to use, look very cool and I like the funky mouse they have.
Personally for me I will always use a PC for the reasons listed above. However, if you want a stylish looking computer under your TV next to you AV equiptment a Mac would probably be a better choice on looks alone. Soundwise there should be no difference between them if you use a digital optcal cable together with an external DAC or receiver.
professorhat
Well-known member
steve_1979:Thirdly a PC is much better for upgrading, in 2 years time if I want a faster computer I can just buy a new processor or graphics card but if you want a faster Mac you need to buy a new one (you can upgrade the RAM or hard drive but that all).
Come on, who replaces a processor or a graphics card in a laptop? Way too much hassle.
Come on, who replaces a processor or a graphics card in a laptop? Way too much hassle.
I know that the original post is concerning music but on the Mac v PC debate, start looking at HD video editing, burning and streaming and it's a no contest I'm afraid.
Mac's do look nice though
Mac's do look nice though
Paul.
Well-known member
steve_1979:
Firstly my overclocked £1000 PC is more than twice as fast as any Mac ever made, even their new top of the range model with all the upgrades.
Im curious what leviathan processor you have that is twice as quick as the Dual 2.93ghz westmere Xeons in the MacPro?
Wovian:
I know that the original post is concerning music but on the Mac v PC debate, start looking at HD video editing, burning and streaming and it's a no contest I'm afraid.
Mac's do look nice though
Its not obvious which way you are leaning on this one as it is not no contest im afraid. At first I was going to start defending the PC (as in my mind its no contest as Final cut studio is such a no brainer... but Vegas is pretty good) but then your 'Macs do look nice though' comment insinuates that you think PC's are the winner, but its ok cos macs look good?Just curious where you stand is all.
Firstly my overclocked £1000 PC is more than twice as fast as any Mac ever made, even their new top of the range model with all the upgrades.
Im curious what leviathan processor you have that is twice as quick as the Dual 2.93ghz westmere Xeons in the MacPro?
Wovian:
I know that the original post is concerning music but on the Mac v PC debate, start looking at HD video editing, burning and streaming and it's a no contest I'm afraid.
Mac's do look nice though
Its not obvious which way you are leaning on this one as it is not no contest im afraid. At first I was going to start defending the PC (as in my mind its no contest as Final cut studio is such a no brainer... but Vegas is pretty good) but then your 'Macs do look nice though' comment insinuates that you think PC's are the winner, but its ok cos macs look good?Just curious where you stand is all.
Paul, yeah apologies if my comments were a bit confusing. I've been reading posts on these forums for too long and I can get a bit sarcastic.
It really comes down to what you use your PC for - as some people have said on this thread.
The Mac brigade generally like the Mac because ....... its a Mac, it looks nice and its user friendly. Most of these Mac fans don't know or care even less about the tech specs (this was nicely put on the thread discussing music streaming from a NAS a few days ago). I have a few of these folk in my office. They absolutely love everything from Apple but have no interest/knowledge about what's going on under the bonnet so to speak. Good Luck to them. I wouldn't put anyone off of buying one. Horses for courses.
My specific interest is HD, I repeat HD video editing. Now whilst I've seen school kids put a great movie together on "imovie" in no time at all and burn it to DVD and Final Cut is, as you say a great product, Apple really seems to stuggle if you want to edit and play a movie in HD because a Mac does not have a Blu Ray drive. This was reallly important for me.
If you want to a burn Blu Ray disc you have to buy a seperate Blu ray burner and Authoring software and the whole useability argument starts to weaken (The Vegas products can do this easily). Forget streaming to the Apple TV, it can't handle full HD and what if you want to show the movie to friends away from your own house?
I was ready to take the plunge and buy a Mac a few months back as I really liked some of the software but after several visits to the Apple store discussing my requirements I was a bit disillusioned to say the least. I even had a one to one with an Apple salesman who happened to walk in to a store when I was on another fact finding mission!
Maybe Apple just does not want people to go the Blu Ray route.
I went with a new PC in the end. For £1,000 I had a machine built to my own spec (with a BD drive) and the kind of performance an Apple couldn't compete with (unless you took out a mortgage and bought the Mac Pro).
So for me its a PC everytime and it is a no contest.....but the Macs look nice though!
It really comes down to what you use your PC for - as some people have said on this thread.
The Mac brigade generally like the Mac because ....... its a Mac, it looks nice and its user friendly. Most of these Mac fans don't know or care even less about the tech specs (this was nicely put on the thread discussing music streaming from a NAS a few days ago). I have a few of these folk in my office. They absolutely love everything from Apple but have no interest/knowledge about what's going on under the bonnet so to speak. Good Luck to them. I wouldn't put anyone off of buying one. Horses for courses.
My specific interest is HD, I repeat HD video editing. Now whilst I've seen school kids put a great movie together on "imovie" in no time at all and burn it to DVD and Final Cut is, as you say a great product, Apple really seems to stuggle if you want to edit and play a movie in HD because a Mac does not have a Blu Ray drive. This was reallly important for me.
If you want to a burn Blu Ray disc you have to buy a seperate Blu ray burner and Authoring software and the whole useability argument starts to weaken (The Vegas products can do this easily). Forget streaming to the Apple TV, it can't handle full HD and what if you want to show the movie to friends away from your own house?
I was ready to take the plunge and buy a Mac a few months back as I really liked some of the software but after several visits to the Apple store discussing my requirements I was a bit disillusioned to say the least. I even had a one to one with an Apple salesman who happened to walk in to a store when I was on another fact finding mission!
Maybe Apple just does not want people to go the Blu Ray route.
I went with a new PC in the end. For £1,000 I had a machine built to my own spec (with a BD drive) and the kind of performance an Apple couldn't compete with (unless you took out a mortgage and bought the Mac Pro).
So for me its a PC everytime and it is a no contest.....but the Macs look nice though!
Paul.
Well-known member
Since when was burning blu ray on a Mac difficult? Sure Final cut doesn't like blue rays (or should I say Steve Jobs has his reasons) but you can do the whole mix in Final cut studio, export in compressor then just use Adobe encore in place of DVDstudio?
Final cut is fantastic for editing high def footage, used to do it myself for a living with sony hdv camcorders about 4-5 years ago (and at the time fcp was light years ahead of vegas and premier for editing hd).
Im in no way trying to say your wrong about your choices, the other stuff I take no issue with. If you considered a Mac and it wasn't right for you, fair play. I just find the idea that Macs are bad for HD because they don't directly support bluray authoring a little short sighted. Windows doesnt support Exchange out of the box but OSX does, does that mean Windows is bad for email ?
Final cut is fantastic for editing high def footage, used to do it myself for a living with sony hdv camcorders about 4-5 years ago (and at the time fcp was light years ahead of vegas and premier for editing hd).
Im in no way trying to say your wrong about your choices, the other stuff I take no issue with. If you considered a Mac and it wasn't right for you, fair play. I just find the idea that Macs are bad for HD because they don't directly support bluray authoring a little short sighted. Windows doesnt support Exchange out of the box but OSX does, does that mean Windows is bad for email ?
Given the original question, I suspect there is little difference. Macs can, however, do things that Windows machines can't approach. Apart from durability, rock-solid operating system which is way more efficient (do you stil have to defrag Windows PCs?), there's the fact that so many accessibility features are built-in. A blind friend of mine enabled voice on my mac in all of two minutes. Try that on a PC.
Crashes? Twice in 2 years, and my mac is in constant hard use. In the same time my windows netbook killed its hard disk twice, turned itself into a brick after a required firmware upgrade and finally wore out. Now I run Windows as a virtual machine on the mac, and, though it's incredibly resource hungry, it works just fine.
I accept the point about Blue Ray, however, and it is true that as a gaming machine macs are useless.
Crashes? Twice in 2 years, and my mac is in constant hard use. In the same time my windows netbook killed its hard disk twice, turned itself into a brick after a required firmware upgrade and finally wore out. Now I run Windows as a virtual machine on the mac, and, though it's incredibly resource hungry, it works just fine.
I accept the point about Blue Ray, however, and it is true that as a gaming machine macs are useless.
I think Windows 7 looks like a BIG improvement (especially ease of use) on what we've seen before from Microsoft so it'll be interesting how that goes.
Paul Hobbs:
....you can do the whole mix in Final cut studio, export in compressor then just use Adobe encore in place of DVDstudio?
That's my point Paul. You'll have to buy the BD burner, the Adobe software and mess around with importing, exporting and compressing and such like.
....you can do the whole mix in Final cut studio, export in compressor then just use Adobe encore in place of DVDstudio?
That's my point Paul. You'll have to buy the BD burner, the Adobe software and mess around with importing, exporting and compressing and such like.
Paul.
Well-known member
So windows is rubbish for email then, if thats the entirety of your point
Any software will have to Render or compress the assets in to a useable state for Bluray, the only thing that changes is what point in your workflow you do it. Not difficult. You wouldn't be choosing software simplicity over function would you? Cos you were painting the 'mac brigade' with that brush a moment ago for that...
Yes you do have to buy the Bluray player, but since all mac users are rich luddites, I cant see that being a problem
Again, I have no problem with vegas or windows if it fits you better, but saying 'no contest' for anything other than price is completely baseless.
Any software will have to Render or compress the assets in to a useable state for Bluray, the only thing that changes is what point in your workflow you do it. Not difficult. You wouldn't be choosing software simplicity over function would you? Cos you were painting the 'mac brigade' with that brush a moment ago for that...
Yes you do have to buy the Bluray player, but since all mac users are rich luddites, I cant see that being a problem
Again, I have no problem with vegas or windows if it fits you better, but saying 'no contest' for anything other than price is completely baseless.
Paul Hobbs:... but since all mac users are rich luddites, I cant see that being a problem Actually, mac users are in the vanguard and its the Windows users who are the Luddites. Windows 7 belongs in the stone age compared to just about every other OS or NOS. Internally it is primitive in the extreme (though I accept the reasons why), and needs a lightning fast processor and lots of RAM to operate at anything like decent speed.
PC, Apple, Linux- who cares ?
none of them are really suitable for audio - full stop.
Now sending untouched digital PCM information to an outboard DAC, that's a different question.
As long as your computer can correctly and accurately decode an audio file and send the PCM out of it's digital output without messing with the signal, it does not makes a difference whether it's a PC or a silly shiny white thing with a silly price tag that looks cool, the important thing is that your computer is set up correctly in the first place to do exactly that.
none of them are really suitable for audio - full stop.
Now sending untouched digital PCM information to an outboard DAC, that's a different question.
As long as your computer can correctly and accurately decode an audio file and send the PCM out of it's digital output without messing with the signal, it does not makes a difference whether it's a PC or a silly shiny white thing with a silly price tag that looks cool, the important thing is that your computer is set up correctly in the first place to do exactly that.
Paul.
Well-known member
Ha, I agree completely Grottyash, was being a little facetious as luddite is the perception most windows 'power users' have of your average Mac user, case in point:Wovian:
Most of these Mac fans don't know or care even less about the tech specs (this was nicely put on the thread discussing music streaming from a NAS a few days ago). I have a few of these folk in my office. They absolutely love everything from Apple but have no interest/knowledge about what's going on under the bonnet so to speak.
Most of these Mac fans don't know or care even less about the tech specs (this was nicely put on the thread discussing music streaming from a NAS a few days ago). I have a few of these folk in my office. They absolutely love everything from Apple but have no interest/knowledge about what's going on under the bonnet so to speak.
Paul.
Well-known member
I will conceed that we have gone off topic a little....
But somebody is wrong on teh Interwebz!!!
But somebody is wrong on teh Interwebz!!!
steve_1979
Well-known member
Paul Hobbs:Im curious what leviathan processor you have that is twice as quick as the Dual 2.93ghz westmere Xeons in the MacPro
WOW! I didn't realise they made them those, very cool! I stand corrected, I thought the fastest Mac was the iMac with a last generation (Lynnfield) Core i5 processor.
My PC has a new generation (Sandy Bridge) Core i7 2600K overclocked to over 4.5GHz using an air cooler. It's totally stable and would easily go faster with a water cooler.
That works out as about 50% of the processing power of the two 2.66GHz 6 core Xeons running together in the top of the range MacPro which costs £4083. My PC was only £1000 and can easily be upgraded when a faster processor comes along.
WOW! I didn't realise they made them those, very cool! I stand corrected, I thought the fastest Mac was the iMac with a last generation (Lynnfield) Core i5 processor.
My PC has a new generation (Sandy Bridge) Core i7 2600K overclocked to over 4.5GHz using an air cooler. It's totally stable and would easily go faster with a water cooler.
That works out as about 50% of the processing power of the two 2.66GHz 6 core Xeons running together in the top of the range MacPro which costs £4083. My PC was only £1000 and can easily be upgraded when a faster processor comes along.
Alec
Well-known member
steve_1979:
Paul Hobbs:Im curious what leviathan processor you have that is twice as quick as the Dual 2.93ghz westmere Xeons in the MacPro
My PC has a new generation (Sandy Bridge) Core i7 2600K overclocked to over 4.5GHz using an air cooler. It's totally stable and would easily go even faster with a water cooler.
Oh dear.
Paul Hobbs:Im curious what leviathan processor you have that is twice as quick as the Dual 2.93ghz westmere Xeons in the MacPro
My PC has a new generation (Sandy Bridge) Core i7 2600K overclocked to over 4.5GHz using an air cooler. It's totally stable and would easily go even faster with a water cooler.
Oh dear.
Paul.
Well-known member
4.5Ghz? Thats impressive. I used to be in to overclocking etc when I was at uni, its alot of fun. I think all men inherently love lists and collecting things, so overclocking and hifi is perfect for that
You can get the 2.93Ghz i7 in the iMac at the mo, not sure if its the Sandy Bridge though. Wouldn't fancy overclocking in that skinny aluminium body!
You can get the 2.93Ghz i7 in the iMac at the mo, not sure if its the Sandy Bridge though. Wouldn't fancy overclocking in that skinny aluminium body!
steve_1979
Well-known member
Paul Hobbs: 4.5Ghz? Thats impressive.
It was a doddle to overclock too because it has an unlocked multiplier.
I've just read about the problems with the chipset though, which is worrying.
It was a doddle to overclock too because it has an unlocked multiplier.
I've just read about the problems with the chipset though, which is worrying.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram