who here has a mac?

[Sisyphus]

I have decided to get a new computer soon, and I'm thinking of switching to Mac. What I have now is a 4.5 year old Dell Inspiron 5100 which I have come to loathe for all it's various hardware and software problems, and that's part of the reason I'm considering switching. Any advice? Particularly from those with experience with both PCs and Macs?

[swansont]

Go for it.

 

I have several macs between home and work, and am also forced to use a PC on occasion. I don't like PCs very much; I find many of the procedures to be counterintuitive. I spend almost as much time caring for the PC in my office as I do for the multiple macs (though part of that is the learning curve of remembering where all the things are hidden on the PC vs the mac)

 

The notion that macs are more expensive PCs isn't generally true, if you compare comparably-equipped machines (what you won't find is the el-cheapo version to which you might compare, since Apple just doesn't compete in that market). And you can run Windows on the newest macs if you are so inclined.

 

If you run Mac OS X, you do run into the problem of less software in some areas, and the fact that a lot of web sites are written to work with Explorer rather than be compliant with web standards. It can be annoying. Macs aren't perfect. But the hardware and software just tends to work.

 

The thing is that all of the people I know who used PCs and switched, ended up liking their Macs more. PC users tend to tolerate windows machines, but Mac users tend to love their Macs.

[Pre4edgc]

Well, I have a friend that owns a PC, and a Mac, and he loathes his Mac to death. However, it's the only machine that he prefers to play World of Warcraft on. It's also a laptop.

 

I'm a PC user, and I think I'd prefer it, but I don't plan to switch to Vista anytime soon. XP is for me.

 

But my classmates and I have had a running joke about the Mac. I'm not fond of the one button mouse...

[Phi for All]

I haven't had a Mac since OS 7 but I always swore by them. As swansont implied, the Mac's procedures are much friendlier and make more sense. Then again, I liked the BetaMax format over VHS for video. More practical, smaller tapes, better quality. Eventually VHS became the norm because of better marketing and eventually they went to four heads instead of two so quality improved, but we still had to use those big-ass VHS tapes.

 

Remember that Windows tried to emulate the Mac platform but used the old Microsoft DOS shell underneath. Vista is an attempt to emulate Mac OS X (according to a Mac-master friend of mine). Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery in the computer world too.

 

I'd love to go Mac again and I would in a heartbeat if I knew I could easily reconcile the problems interacting with PC users. The Mac will read PC stuff just fine, but the PCs often have trouble reading Mac. Vista may solve that problem, however.

[Pangloss]

I'm still trying to get used to the undocumented, unacknowledged UI behavior changes in Vista, many months after release. Some of them are quite frustrating, like when I right-click on something and get the wrong context menu, or try to sweep objects with the mouse and get unexpected results, or click and get a drag response instead of a click response. Very annoying.

 

The point being that there's probably never been a better time to switch, between Vista causing Windows users to re-learn things on the one hand, and Apple incorporating a chip that runs Windows code natively on the other. Why NOT try a Mac?

 

My personal opinion is that what drives this industry forward, generation after generation, is competition. And for that to work we all have to remain open to the possibility of changing our own preferences. That means NOT being a Microsoft fanboy OR a Linux fanboy OR a Mac fanboy. The Linux preachers are just as wrong as the Microsoft preachers. Heed none of them, or eventually we all lose. Instead try them ALL, and be ready to switch at will, whenever the situation warrants or it just plain strikes your fancy.

[Klaynos]

On a daily basis I use linux (normally ubuntu), macOSX, and windows xp, I've spent some time using Vista.... My advise would be avoid vista for the time being, it's not worth the hastle... mac OS X is far nicer than XP for alot of things and is certainly more shiney, but if you're not used to it you will probably find it horrible as it doesn't do things in the same way. The same really applies to my personal choice which is linux... If you are prepared to learn something new a mac is a very feasible options especially for notebooks...

[bascule]

At work I use OS X almost exclusively, although I do have an XP box I use primarily for running web browsers.

 

At home I run Kubuntu.

 

OS X is my favorite OS of these three. I'm constantly frustrated by Kubuntu and how things they've tried to automate often just don't work properly.

 

That said OS X is probably the least stable platform of the three... I've had OS X crash more than Windows and Linux combined. When it's not actually giving me the dreaded "Please restart your compiler" kernel crash dialog, the UI is freezing to the point it's unusable.

 

I've had another fun experience where my laptop won't even boot. No startup chime, just a greyish / white screen with no apple which persists no matter how long I wait. Power cycling repeatedly seemed to fix the problem, and oddly enough I was in the room with two other hardcore Mac fiends and they both complained of the same problem.

 

The real problem with Apple is they know they've inspired so much user devotion that they don't need rock solid product stability and haven't really worked on it. For someone who controls all the hardware and software in the system, Apple hasn't exactly done a stellar job building a stable platform.

[Klaynos]

With the two mac laptops I use regularly I've never had any problems with crashes or any instability (accept a battery dieing, and the other bat being recalled ROFL).

 

As for the older desktops I use at uni, well the network and clustering software we use seems to have issues...

[Dak]

considering that linux is free and pc's are cheaper than macs, wouldn't a linux-pc give you more bang for you're buck than a mac?

[Sisyphus]

considering that linux is free and pc's are cheaper than macs, wouldn't a linux-pc give you more bang for you're buck than a mac?

 

PCs of equivalent specs and quality are significantly cheaper? There are PCs that don't come with windows that have technical support, warranties, etc.?

[Klaynos]

PCs of equivalent specs and quality are significantly cheaper? There are PCs that don't come with windows that have technical support, warranties, etc.?

 

Dell are now selling computers with ubuntu installed...

 

Other than that you can get retailers who will sell a computer with no OS installed.

 

Or you can build yourself, each componant will have a warrenty...

 

As for technical support most linux distros have very large communities that act as tech support. Just look at wiki.ubuntu.com or ubuntuforums.org

[swansont]

Or you can build yourself, each componant will have a warrenty...

 

A warranty ensures against manufacturing defects, but does not guarantee that the parts will all play nicely with each other. That's where macs have an advantage — Apple is, at its core (sorry) a hardware company. There are a limited number of configurations you can get from them, so they have good control over compatibility issues. They went down the third-party path in the mid/late 90's, licensing the OS to let others build hardware, and it was a disaster.

 

They also have less of an inclination to assume their customers are thieves.

[Dak]

PCs of equivalent specs and quality are significantly cheaper?

 

I'm not sure. i'm sure that, if you're willing to do the not-entirely-easy configuration step (or get someone else to do it for you, eg dell's ubuntu deal) that a pc running linux would be more powerful for the cost than a windows pc, but i don't know how that compares with macs.

 

macs were (still are?) quite expensive, but afaik they're also quite a bit more powerful. you're still paying for the OS i think, so out of $600 you'd get less than $600 worth of hardware. maybe?

 

actually, the cheapest way would be to put linux on your existing box: greater efficiency plus no need for anti-viruses would mean your current box will probably get a new lease of life running a linux distro, but it depends on what you use it for (gaming's not great, unless you're prepared to settle for emulated SNES and nethack), and wether you'd prefer cost over ease-of-use or wether you're willing to pay to not have to manually configure your mouse --which, i swear, nearly made me take a hammer to my computer. otoh, i did eventually get it sorted, which is probably more than i'd have managed on windows if something had desided to Just Not Work.

 

[/rant]

[insane_alien]

(gaming's not great, unless you're prepared to settle for emulated SNES and nethack)

 

Ahem! i have Half-Life 2 and a couple of other games from valve running quite nicely on my ubuntu desktop through WINE. also, Quake games run fine in linux with no compatability layer.

[Dak]

Ahem! i have Half-Life 2 and a couple of other games from valve running quite nicely on my ubuntu desktop through WINE. also, Quake games run fine in linux with no compatability layer.

 

i think that quake is open-source shareware like doom which is why it works natively on linux... most games you have to rely on wine, which doesn't allways work in my experience, tho i could have been doing something wrong i suppose.

 

tbh, i usually am perfectly happy with my SNES emulator and nethack now i'm a bit more experienced with linux i might have another bash at getting some windows games to run with wine.

 

slightly back OT: how're macs for games? last i heard they weren't too good, but were improving.

[swansont]

considering that linux is free and pc's are cheaper than macs

 

One can no longer validly make that latter statement. I've priced several configurations of different devices in the time since macs started using Intel chips, so that you can do an actual comparison, and have found several examples of macs being cheaper when identical hardware is loaded onto the system. (it has helped justify a mac purchase where I work when you can show it's cheaper, too, and not "just" user preference) And that's before you compare the software that comes standard (and that's not the trial software)

 

The tendency for PCs to be cheaper is more likely when you get to the low end, and there is a threshold below which you won't find macs, because they don't compete in that area of the market.

 

macs were (still are?) quite expensive, but afaik they're also quite a bit more powerful. you're still paying for the OS i think, so out of $600 you'd get less than $600 worth of hardware. maybe?

 

The only $600 mac you'll find is the mini, AFAIK. The OS sells separately for $129. Vista Home is $200 where I looked; the other versions more expensive.

[insane_alien]

i think that quake is open-source shareware like doom which is why it works natively on linux... most games you have to rely on wine, which doesn't allways work in my experience, tho i could have been doing something wrong i suppose

 

nah, the company that makes quake graciously provides a linux installer. the game itself isn't opensource.

 

as for the PC-mac, i prefer PC's as i can pick and choose whatever configuration i want. also, i've never had much luck with macs. either the OS doesn't let me do something or it crashes at the wrong moment.(working with them in school was hell, 2/3 saves it crashed. rewrote a LOT of work) then again, windows can be just as bad and worse.

 

you can install linux on either platform so its not all bad.

[ParanoiA]

I prefer PC, but only because it's more of an open architecture so I can mix and match peripherals and sink money on necessary components while being cheap on the others.

 

As a musician, Mac is always being touted as the best and is on board with Pro Tools LE - which is a perfect match since both products are closed off hardware/software all-in-one fixes - and won't play with anyone else. However I challenge how well Mac can be utilized when you're forced to use a specific set of hardware devices. PC allows me to use the latest and greatest soundcard to use with the latest and greatest software sequencer.

 

Just my two cents. From my limited experience, both PC and Mac have equal pontential to be problem children, so I tend to focus on the flexibility - which may or may not matter to you.

[bascule]

However I challenge how well Mac can be utilized when you're forced to use a specific set of hardware devices. PC allows me to use the latest and greatest soundcard to use with the latest and greatest software sequencer.

 

I challenge what high end audio hardware is shipping without Mac drivers.

 

In most of the pro software I've used (e.g. Reason, Ableton Live) the Windows and Mac versions are released simultaneously or the Mac version is released first.

 

Mac's CoreAudio has lower latency than ASIO, especially with multichannel audio interfaces. CoreAudio allows hardware sync with 4+ channels, compared with ASIO that requires software sync (raising the latency further)

 

Plus there's all sorts of software that you just can't get on PC, like Logic.

 

Just my two cents. From my limited experience, both PC and Mac have equal pontential to be problem children, so I tend to focus on the flexibility - which may or may not matter to you.

 

I tend to WTF if I go into someone's "studio" and see they have an MBox hooked up over USB to their Windows machine running ProTools LE...

[ParanoiA]

I challenge what high end audio hardware is shipping without Mac drivers.

 

In most of the pro software I've used (e.g. Reason' date=' Ableton Live) the Windows and Mac versions are released simultaneously or the Mac version is released first.

 

Mac's CoreAudio has lower latency than ASIO, especially with multichannel audio interfaces. CoreAudio allows hardware sync with 4+ channels, compared with ASIO that requires software sync (raising the latency further)

 

Plus there's all sorts of software that you just can't get on PC, like Logic.[/quote']

 

Well you're certainly right, and now that Mac is doing windows emulation the flexibility in software is in their favor. I just don't see how any of those advantages outweigh the disadvantage of lack of choice in peripherals and components. I've read so many Mac vs. PC threads, and none of them fruit into any kind of victory for either platform.

 

It always seems to boil down to PC = open architecture and component flexibility in trade for less stability, while Mac = closed architecture, hardware/software exclusivity providing in better integration and stability but more costly and less choice.

 

 

I tend to WTF if I go into someone's "studio" and see they have an MBox hooked up over USB to their Windows machine running ProTools LE...

 

I actually looked into loading Pro Tools when I researched the Mbox and got so turned off by the hardware/software exclusivity - especially for the price. It's like, you better like that Mbox...because there's no alternative. Well, another Digidesign box maybe...

[Royston]

Latency and buffer size, are more tied in with the sound card, cpu speed and the applications you're using e.g plug-in synths et.c so again it's down to price...PC with a fast cpu over a Mac.

 

Whether you're using CoreAudio or ASIO, you'll get latency problems if for example, you're using a free soft synth that's cpu heavy, with no direct monitoring et.c. I have a crappy 1.6 Ghz processor, and use the background heavy Cubase, with a load of outboard gear, my latency is quite high (over 11ms on ASIO), but you can't hear it i.e everything sounds perfectly in sync coming from a number of different sources, plug-ins, outboard MIDI gear et.c Of course using outboard, takes a massive strain off the cpu, as many plug-ins are sample based, so you're essentially playing lots of audio files on top of each other, which obviously is a strain if your pc / mac isn't too quick.

 

So in short, you have to be picky with what your using if latency is really an issue...I could pick up a 2.8 Ghz cpu off E-bay for about £ 20, and get my latency right down, just hav'nt got round to it, and nobody would be able to tell the difference, except for me. I agree, I wouldn't bother with Pro-Tools unless I had a Mac though...shame they stopped making Logic for PC.

 

I'm sure Sisyphus isn't the slightest bit interested in any of this, but just thought I'd add my two cents.

 

If you suck at coming up with an original piece of music, it doesn't matter what equipment you have.

 

Bascule, not sure if you're interested, but I strongly recommend Reaktor over Ableton / Reason, especially if you want to tackle the nuts and bolts of synthesis / sequencing et.c

[ParanoiA]

I agree with most of that Snail, although I have recently suffered from the latency issue due to percussion. I use an electronic kit now instead of writing the MIDI note by note. The drawback is the latency because the delay screws me up while I'm playing. If I decide to turn off the playback so I don't hear the delay, then I can only hear the sounds of rubber pads being smacked and it's hard to make out the timing or hear any mistakes until after the fact. And then I have to slide the track a few milliseconds to get it lined up with the rest of the music.

 

So, I agree that latency is probably overrated most of the time, I guess, but there are times when it's a serious enough issue that it can cause a lot of headache.

 

And I'll bet Sisyphus is glued to the screen reading about this. I'm just sure he's fascinated with all this.

[Royston]

I agree with most of that Snail, although I have recently suffered from the latency issue due to percussion. I use an electronic kit now instead of writing the MIDI note by note. The drawback is the latency because the delay screws me up while I'm playing.

 

Without knowing exactly what you're set up is, I can't really help...a friend of mine uses VDrums, so before this thread goes off track (too late) PM me, and I'll try and help out.

[bascule]

Latency can certainly be a painful issue if you're using lousy soft synths... even a 30ms latency is about 1/32nd beat off (at 60 bpm). Try doing anything live with syncopated rhythms or shuffle/offbeats and it can get pretty confusing.

[Royston]

Indeed, latency on plug-ins, won't show through ASIO et.c. Of course even with some high-end synths, Absynth 4 is a good example, you need some pretty hefty processing power to not experience any lag. The samples are a very high bit rate, and multi layered, and of course you have the synthesis itself to tackle...modulation, filters et.c The textures are incredibly rich, and sound just as good as any outboard gear, but it comes at a price.

 

These kind of synths, are typically aimed at higher spec / more recent pc's, and my relatively ancient cpu, will splutter if I'm using any other plug-ins alongside something like Absynth. I've been discussing this with ParanoiA, and I'm hunting E-bay for a new processor (for the time being.) I think next year, I'll be parting with some of my beloved outboard synthesizers / fx, and taking the plunge with a new Mac, a box for my guitar (MAudio), and Reaktor.