The mysterious mac...

[jivex5k]

Alright...
I've grown up on windows...since 3.1 came out I've been a windows user.
Now there is an aura around macintosh that they are so great for multimedia editing and such....
I've done a little research and haven't really found much to back it up.
What I have seemed to glean is that macs are better looking, easier, and tend to have less errors.
Ease of use does not concern me too much, i was running on freebsd for a little while and am not scared to get dirty. Looks... don't really matter either, and windows xp has yet to give me any problems, just keep it clean.
Now for my question:
Why are macs considered to be the best when it comes to multimedia (most importantly audio) . I have no doubt that FL Studio can create professional music, and there's always Project 5 and sony acid. Why should i get a mac to create music with when my windows xp system works perfectly fine?
Sorry if this is more about an operating system than a soundcard.

 

[DrewWinters]

Because it's an urban legend.

Mostly because Adobe used to produce only Mac software and Adobe makes some of the best stuff out there.

Currently, Macs are slower, more expensive, and less reliable than a comparable PC. To be fair, I haven't used the latest build of OS X - but the last one was dismal IMO. I couldn't hardly stand it - it was less stable than Win95. With the Opteron out and WinXP 64-bit on the horizon there is little hope for the stagnated Mac line. If they had been able to ramp up processor speeds like Jobs had promised then there MIGHT have been hope for them. But it's too late now.

There is less software - even multimedia software - and less equipment available for macs. You can easily modify and expand on a PC to fulfill your media needs - Macs are not so easy.

Macs are NOT easier to use. They are simpler in that they have less things to control (e.g. the one-button mouse) but they are much harder to do anything that isn't basic (it is helpful that you can use a two-button mouse with them now).

Every few years I give Mac another chance... and every time I am dissapointed. They are skating on thin ice right now - they are surviving on the basis of reputation and appearances - neither of which will keep them afloat.

But that's just my opinion. I'm sure that there was a reason for the reputation at one time... but it is no longer true.

 

[LakerDodger]

Actually, it is somewhat true. Final Cut Pro is the best mid-level digital video editing program out there. Nothing else really compares.

 

[shimage]

I am told (though I have no personal experience) that at one point in time the Motorola processors were significantly better at dealing with the types of calculations typical of video editing. At the time I heard this (several years ago), people seemed to believe that this gap had disappeared.

As for the speed/usability, you can't compare frequencies, because they're completely different architectures. It's possible that they are just slower, but I haven't done any testing, so I won't comment on that. Usability is largely in the eye of the beholder, but I have to agree, a one-button mouse is inexcusable. That's why I use a three-button mouse with my mac

Having a unified interface is seen as a usability holy grail by those that care about those things (look at gnome), and as such MacOS has always been seen as more usable---though I don't necessarily agree with the pundits there (look at gnome...). As for getting stuff done... I find windows to be mind-numbingly frustrating. None of the tools I take for granted are there, and the command-line is useless. I can't run many of the programs I've come to love and rely on. I can do this on a Mac through fink without a hitch. Certainly this is a very personal consideration, based on what one is used to, but for me there's no contest (particularly with regard to the availability of software).

OTOH, Macs are waaaayy to overpriced (like everything Apple sells, including the ubiquitous ipod), so I tend to stay away from them. I just have the laptop, since the price goes down with size for them, whilst for "PCs" the trend is opposite.

OT: if anyone knows where the damn (fs|m)tab file is, could they please let me know? It's kind of frustrating not knowing what's (un)mounted at times...

edit: yes, I am aware of cygwin. I've tried it, and it's about as useful as wine (i.e. not at all. at least for me, but I suppose ymmv)

 

[Jeff E]

Religious discussions do not belong in this forum.

Seriously, let's not rehearse this script for the umpteen millionth time. It really is not productive nor germane to the purpose of this forum.

 

[Mr.Radar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shimage OT: if anyone knows where the damn (fs|m)tab file is, could they please let me know? It's kind of frustrating not knowing what's (un)mounted at times...

It should be in /etc/.

 

[3lusiv3]

I work in a large TV production company and we wouldn't use anything but Macs. Some suggestionss above are totally clueless and untrue.

Macs are the most reliable, stable platform for multimedia work. I run my latptop for weeks without restarting. Our file servers have been running for a year without restarting. Macs are faster and are as cheap as any Windows machine when compared with an equivalently featured machine. The UNIX based Mac OS X running on a G4 or G5 processor is unbeatable. Software is easy to find and is very reliable. Viruses are non existent.

I don't want to get into a big discussion because frankly I don't have time, but seriously consider the Mac platform. Be wary of misinformation by uninformed or inexperienced people.

Personally I wouldn't use anything but a Mac.

 

[DrewWinters]

I am neither inexperienced nor uninformed. Trying to argue my claims are false based on my "inexperience" is a "ad hominem" argument: you are attacking the person not the argument. But I don't time for a big discussion either...

I will argue one point though: Mac are NOT the same price as PC's. Apple's far smaller volume forces costs up - even if they wanted to they could not match PCs. This becomes DRAMATICALLY apparent if you are willing to build your own computer (try buying parts to build an Apple on your own.) But even if you are not willing to build your own - even Alienware is cheaper than Apple! On what basis do you claim this? I'm at a loss to explain it.

If you have been using a PC, you will most likely find operating the Mac a frustrating process. The same is true for Mac users switching to PC's. I'll withhold my opinions on why

Otherwise, suffice to say that opinions are varied. Do some research online: but take with a grain of salt anything directly comparing PC's and Mac's - there are alot of deluded fanboys (not accusing you, 3lusiv3, I promise!) on both sides that have often never even considered using the other, much less given them a fair shot. Nonetheless, there is some good material comparing them if you search.

To answer your question, "why should I buy a Mac when my XP system is fine": IMO, you shouldn't. The cost is not justified, nor is the time spent trying to learn a new OS. Instead, if you need more power, upgrade to an Opteron or Athlon 64 -based system. Consider Adobe Audition if you need an audio-editing program. Can't help you with music creation, however. Of course, if ain't broke - dont fix it. If you are happy with what you have, stay that way. Put the money away until you need more.
Good luck.

 

[proglife]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrewWinters Every few years I give Mac another chance... and every time I am dissapointed. They are skating on thin ice right now - they are surviving on the basis of reputation and appearances - neither of which will keep them afloat.

You're entitled to your opinion (but his opinion is wrong, folks

), but this statement is WAY out there.

"Via webcast conference call, Apple stated its financial earnings over fiscal 2004 third quarter ended June 26, 2004:

- Highest Q3 in 8 years
- $61 Million profit on revenue of $2 Billion
- Highest quartely shipment of macs
- iBook 240K, iMac 220K, 416K desktops
- Apple Retail Stores now total 80 with $270 million revenue
- Cash up to $4.96 billion. Apple is a debt-free company
- 2004 total revenue should exceed US$8 billion
- iMac G5 CONFIRMED by Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer (Previously Rumored)
- 860,000 iPods sold in Q2 - up 183% from same period last year
- Demand on iPod mini expected to "visibly outstrip supply" through end of the year
- iTunes Music Store generated a small profit
- hPod: HP will ship "this summer"
- Office Depot authorized to sell online. No plan to extend to retail stores
- Best Buy and Apple work well with iPod sales. No plans to increase working together on CPU sales
- Xserve G5s sold 13K units - a quarterly record for Apple
- As Euro iTunes Music Store launched, Euro iPod sales increased as well
- Over 13,000 retail outlets for iPod. More people want to sell it than Apple has supply to provide"

 

[intlplby]

several things here:

OS X and OS 9 are two totally different beasts to say things about Apples based on an OS 9 experience is like me telling someone about PCs but talking about 3.11

I've used PCs since DOS 4.0 and Macs since the Apple IIe

I switched totally to windows after the IIe went out.... Windows simply had a lot more software support for most games...... when i went out of my gaming phase and switched to creative work graphics programs were comparable for both macs and windows, so i stuck with windows. Windows frustrated the hell out of me but i stuck with it...... unstable... crashes alot and requires a lot to set up.... Plug and Play in windows is a total lie...... With XP windows got a lot better.... became stable enough to be tolerable for most work.....but still the only people i know who havent restarted their windows machines in months use them as servers....

I used OS 9 here and there but still preferred XP....... OS X came out and i finally made the switch in february...... As true to plug and play i've ever experienced, practically seamless.... absolutely better than XP and OX 9 by ten-fold.... there are things here and there that need a few changes, but over all better.

now XP is still a great OS but the main reason i refuse to use windows machines now is because spyware and adware has gotten so out of control that you need to spend too much energy trying to protect your machine from being practically unusable from all that stuff

as far as hardware..... windows machines with do more for the same money, that's undisputed.... if you are on a budget and aren't high paid choose a windows machine....... if you are well salaried and have a better budget choose a mac

why?

Stability.... think of it this way:

time = money
design work = lots of time
and
crashes = lost time
therefore
crashes = lots of lost time

crashes = lots of lost money

as a result the windows machine starts costing a lot more in the long run if your time is valuable.

if i made 10-15 an hour i'd choose the PC, but since my worktime is worth 40+ i would never use a PC..... i'd lose too much money due to lost time.


As far photoshop, illustrator, indesign, quarkxpress, flash, freehand, dreamweaver, logic pro etc there is negligible difference between PCs and Macs for creative work

for video work i'd choose a mac.......no questions about it.

several reasons:
1) PC processors may have 'bigger' numbers on their processors but comparing the PPC chips to PC chips is like comparing apples and oranges..... a 1Ghz PPC chip performs about the same as a 1.6 GHz PC chip........

2) Computer Architecture.... a apple has much better computer architecture to deal with shear amount of raw data that needs to be moved around for video work.... they are currently set up to be more upgradeable..... you can put more RAM in them and whatnot..... a G5 has been designed to eliminated the bottlenecks frequently encountered with high memory and data intensive stuff like video and it is available now.

3) 64 bit PCs are "around the corner" like Drew said if you consider "around the corner" to be around 1.5-2 years...... Microsoft is very behind on their next scheduled major release..... they are currently scrambling to put out an intermediate 'updated XP' right now.

4) Most people in creative work you will find use an Apple. so if you find yourself not using your own equipment, you will be already comfortable using OS X since you have it at home....... Being used to both PCs and Apples is never a bad thing.

5) the only video systems that have a real leg up on Final Cut Pro are stuff like Avid, but the performance gap between turnkey solutions and Final Cut Pro is becoming increasingly narrow

6) Finally, for creative work you'll find more knowledgable people in the Apple User community. There are more people with more experience there for creative work..... i have found since i switched to Apple that i know more people that i can ask things when i don't know the answer myself...... that, to me, is of invaluable worth



somethings drew is right about.... switching is frustrating.... but not for more than 2weeks-2months....... it's like riding a bicycle... once you get it, it's simple



basically my conclusions are:

1) if you do video work choose apple
2) if you do just graphic work and aren't high paid choose PC
3) if you do just graphic work and are high paid choose apple
4) if your time is limited and you have a busy schedule choose apple
5) if you want the most equipment performance per dollar choose PC
6) if you want the better OS choose Apple
7) if you don't learn or adapt well to new systems stick with PC


DrewWinters - What multimedia software worth having is not made for OS X. For every piece of software I have not been able to get on OS X there has been a equal if not better program for OS X

the only exception to this is industry specific software. For me it is textiles and apparel... I can't get Gerber Accumark, Pointcarre and U4ia for OS X..... but then again each of those are $4000-6000 for a license so it would have it's own dedicated PC machine anyways.... if you do engineering work i would avoid a apple for sure because all the good engineering stuff is on PC

for audio the best thing there is is Logic Pro.... ditch cubase and fruity loops and go for Logic....... get MOTU Digital Performer 4, Reason, Recycle and Pro Tools LE and you are set for audio work


but i think all those are made for PC as well... i know Logic Pro is....

ultimately just ask yourself

"how much does lost time cost me"

 

[proglife]

Great post! BUT, the price gap is really not THAT big. More expensive...maybe, but you get what you pay for. Would you save for an extra week to get an NAD over a Sony Best Buy special? I would.

 

[intlplby]

at the low end the gap isnt that big but for high end work the gap can get pretty large

but the high end is where you really see the Apples outperform the PCs


a fully decked out G5 (dual 2.5s, 8 gigs ram, 30inch monitor etc etc etc) is 14 k

i think a comparable PC would get to about 10k

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jivex5k Why should i get a mac to create music with when my windows xp system works perfectly fine?

If all is well then there is no reason for you to use a mac. I use both PCs and Mac myself. I need to have the Mac around because of font issues, some differences in Macromedia apps, color checking, browser compatibility, etc. I don't use it otherwise. Such little use didn't justify me buying one so I just assembled one myself. But if you don't have any pressing reasons then don't bother looking.

 

[proglife]

Quote:

Originally Posted by intlplby at the low end the gap isnt that big but for high end work the gap can get pretty large but the high end is where you really see the Apples outperform the PCs a fully decked out G5 (dual 2.5s, 8 gigs ram, 30inch monitor etc etc etc) is 14 k i think a comparable PC would get to about 10k

Monitor not included, you think the two would be that drastically different?

 

[Wodgy]

I've always used Windows machines, and cannot practically switch for reasons related to work, but if I had a choice, I would definitely switch over to a Mac.

As I see it, Macs have two major advantages:
1) less dicking around with stuff
2) more software that I'd like to use.

If you're not a professional or play games, neither of these reasons would work for you. For me, they're important.

"Less dicking around with stuff" means that things just tend to work with Macs and don't require large investments of time. For instance, it took me months and required ancillary test equipment for me to be sure that I was getting a bit-perfect digital audio output from my PC laptop. I had to learn about kMixer and kernel streaming and all sorts of junk. The equivalent Apple solution, the Airport Express, just works. No need to learn a new music program (Foobar), not need to fret about kMixer, etc. It just works. Sure you can use the Airport Express with a PC, but that's not the point -- it took Apple to introduce a low cost solution targeted at an average person's needs that just works properly out of the box without any dicking around. Moreover, the software Apple supplies actually works for this purpose. Apart from a handful of sound cards that primarly use now-obsolete VxD drivers, it is impossible to get bit-perfect output from Windows Media Player. Why should an average person have to switch to a third-party media player just to get clean output? Why doesn't MS just ship a media player and sound architecture that actually works properly? It's inexcusable. This pattern is repeated again and again when you compare Windows with Mac OS X. For professionals, Mac OS X means less dicking around.

"More software that I'd like to use" means that in many areas the Mac OS X software market has a innovative programs that have no duplicates on the Windows platform. Case in point: outlining software. After Microsoft killed Ecco Pro by bundling Outlook with Office in 1997, there are only two decent commercial outliners for Windows: NoteMap, targeted at lawyers, and Inspiration, targeted at schoolkids. Neither program is particularly powerful and neither supports columns. On the Mac you've got OmniOutliner, NoteTaker, and two programs called NoteBook. Three of those are extremely powerful and two support columns. One could argue that OneNote fits into this category, but it is not a usable tool for real research, especially in comparison to NoteTaker and NoteBook. Similarly, while you can get some good noncommercial Unix software on Windows via Cygwin or MinGW, you can get virtually all major noncommercial Unix software for OS X, including the Gnome and KDE apps, and they work reliably. Then there are the underlying OS features in OS X that have no counterpart in Windows, such as clipping services, or have difficult to access counterparts in Windows, such as cross-application scripting. I know more OS X non-programmer users that use AppleScript simply because it's included, accessible, advertised, and a standard than I know Windows users who program with ActiveX automation.