Another PC vs Mac ..With a twist...

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:48 am

atomic wrote:
john gordon wrote:ok.i willl just say it even though its going to piss off all you pc users.im able to time travel with my mac. pc does not have the technology to do this and even more it never will.
thats right! but only back in time as your laptops are so slow that you are living in 2000 every time you turn it on

This would explain why tape saturation, and analogue soft synths like the Moog Modular plug ins sound better on a mac!

atomic · Post by **atomic** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:10 am

Machinesworking wrote:
atomic wrote:
john gordon wrote:ok.i willl just say it even though its going to piss off all you pc users.im able to time travel with my mac. pc does not have the technology to do this and even more it never will.
thats right! but only back in time as your laptops are so slow that you are living in 2000 every time you turn it on
This would explain why tape saturation, and analogue soft synths like the Moog Modular plug ins sound better on a mac!

john gordon · Post by **john gordon** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:15 am

atomic wrote:
Machinesworking wrote:
atomic wrote: thats right! but only back in time as your laptops are so slow that you are living in 2000 every time you turn it on
This would explain why tape saturation, and analogue soft synths like the Moog Modular plug ins sound better on a mac!

oh yes that too

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 12:35 pm

thats right! but only back in time as your laptops are so slow that you are living in 2000 every time you turn it on

This is 100% true. At least until the new CPUs from Intel arrive.

Steve Jobs has been nearly shitting his pants waiting for IBM to deliver higher performance.... but alas, it has yet to come.

Hello Intel.

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 12:38 pm

but what does it say about an Operating System when i (and so many others) would rather use the one that comes with the "year 2000" G4 1.5ghz than my old machine... the Athlon 64 3700. (both were equally priced mind you)

i think it says alot.

RobStrobe · Post by **RobStrobe** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 12:44 pm

Hello Intel.

....huhu riscprocessor...

)

are we friends now and can use any OS we´ll like to use??(like OSX on pc and Windows 64bit on a MAC??)then second oppinion no one will do...but the other, i think it´s real nice if it works....

RobStrobe · Post by **RobStrobe** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 12:45 pm

AdamJay wrote:but what does it say about an Operating System when i (and so many others) would rather use the one that comes with the "year 2000" G4 1.5ghz than my old machine... the Athlon 64 3700. (both were equally priced mind you)

i think it says alot.

fuc..my neglish is so bad...what do you want to say???

*sry*please*

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:04 pm

but what does it say about an Operating System when i (and so many others) would rather use the one that comes with the "year 2000" G4 1.5ghz than my old machine... the Athlon 64 3700. (both were equally priced mind you)

i think it says alot.

It says that you've been very effectively brainwashed by a clever, guerilla marketing campaign.

But seriously, I would buy an Apple computer when I see that the hardware outperforms the other options out there. I'm looking forward to the Intel gear.... because hopefully that will bring Apple back into a competitive position in terms of hardware performance.

I don't really care about the OS. I'm a Windows expert, and Windows XP works great. If I owned a Mac, I would be a Mac OS expert. I'm just good with computers, so I have no problem learning new software. Maybe Mac OS is more stable?... I don't know how to answer that, because Windows XP is so stable for me, I can't even tell you when I had a crash.... because I don't recall ever having a single one.

The Apple commercials targeted at Windows were made years ago, at a time when they might have been more valid. But, time has passed. PCs have evolved while Apple has been effectively standing still... albeit enjoying the benefits of its loyal fan base. But that loyalty was built on the claims of higher performance... claims which are no longer substantiated, at least on the hardware side.

So the answer to your question is that "it says" you just like what you like, and that happens to be Mac for one reason or for many.

But for me.... I don't really care which platform I use, or anyone uses... I just care about finding a high-quality computer, with good performance vs. price. Mac simply does not offer good performance vs. price right now.... not as far as I'm concerned, at least. So I'm still using PCs. When the new Intel gear arrives, I will give Mac strong consideration again.

RobStrobe · Post by **RobStrobe** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:14 pm

thank you @ subterfuse

=)

john gordon · Post by **john gordon** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:23 pm

ok,but the bottom line is when your sitting in a coffe shop macs will get you more
chicks.nobody can argue with that!!!!!!!!

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:37 pm

john gordon wrote:ok,but the bottom line is when your sitting in a coffe shop macs will get you more
chicks.nobody can argue with that!!!!!!!!

Right, like geeks have ever gotten chicks with their cool geek tools........

PC's are cheaper, and I'm probably going to be using both permanently. For pure speed and cheap upgrades, PC's can't be beat. It would cost someone $3000 a year to have the fastest mac desktop, but I imagine you could pull off a substantial upgrade to your PC for a couple hundred for a few years, then bite the bullet and spend about $1400 on a new roll you own with all the fastest crap in it, every third year.

Powerbooks have the best reliability ratings, and really, OSX is a better OS, so both is what I'm thinking. As long as a good portion of my software is cross platform, it's not that big of a deal.

Anyway it's still true that topmodern Reactor ensembles sound best on a PC, but vintage piano instruments sound best on mac.

robin · Post by **robin** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:40 pm

AdamJay wrote:but what does it say about an Operating System when i (and so many others) would rather use the one that comes with the "year 2000" G4 1.5ghz than my old machine... the Athlon 64 3700. (both were equally priced mind you)

i think it says alot.

indeed it does and exactly how i feel about things.

robin · Post by **robin** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:44 pm

subterFUSE wrote:
but what does it say about an Operating System when i (and so many others) would rather use the one that comes with the "year 2000" G4 1.5ghz than my old machine... the Athlon 64 3700. (both were equally priced mind you)

i think it says alot.

It says that you've been very effectively brainwashed by a clever, guerilla marketing campaign.

But seriously, I would buy an Apple computer when I see that the hardware outperforms the other options out there. I'm looking forward to the Intel gear.... because hopefully that will bring Apple back into a competitive position in terms of hardware performance.

I don't really care about the OS. I'm a Windows expert, and Windows XP works great. If I owned a Mac, I would be a Mac OS expert. I'm just good with computers, so I have no problem learning new software. Maybe Mac OS is more stable?... I don't know how to answer that, because Windows XP is so stable for me, I can't even tell you when I had a crash.... because I don't recall ever having a single one.

The Apple commercials targeted at Windows were made years ago, at a time when they might have been more valid. But, time has passed. PCs have evolved while Apple has been effectively standing still... albeit enjoying the benefits of its loyal fan base. But that loyalty was built on the claims of higher performance... claims which are no longer substantiated, at least on the hardware side.

So the answer to your question is that "it says" you just like what you like, and that happens to be Mac for one reason or for many.

But for me.... I don't really care which platform I use, or anyone uses... I just care about finding a high-quality computer, with good performance vs. price. Mac simply does not offer good performance vs. price right now.... not as far as I'm concerned, at least. So I'm still using PCs. When the new Intel gear arrives, I will give Mac strong consideration again.

i see what you say and have used PC and mac with live and whilst live was quicker with a PC that was two years older than my brand new powerbook (this was 18mths ago) the whole experience was just better on the powerbook. and that to me is the bottom line.

i can turn up at a gig lift the lid on the powerbook and come out of sleep in 2 seconds, fire up Live, plug in my usb audio card and uc33 and i'm ready to go.

i'm not sure a PC is that simple but if i'm wrong then shout as i'd like to be proven wrong.

Sales Dude McBoob · Post by **Sales Dude McBoob** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:00 pm

Okay, here it is...

White = Good

Black = Evil

Silver = Yuppie Dishwasher

That's just the way it is. And I for one am guilty of loving my little foldable yuppie dishwasher.

Not to throw gas on an old and dreadfully boring debate, BUTT, I use Live on a PC a lot, a powerful music optimized PC, and often times when I throw Impulse on a track and then try to load a preset drumkit, like say Tressor, it will sort of choke for a minute or two trying to load the kit, then when it finally loads, the square box where the presets were listed in the GUI (this is Live 4) will be a blank graphicless box.

Not starting a fight, just reporting.

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:46 pm

Understood.

I have used Live when playing out... and at some house parties at my place. One party we recorded over 18 hours of non-stop music, between 4 people... me and 1 friend used Live, the 2 others used vinyl. Live never had so much as a hiccup the whole time.

I consider Live and my PC both to be extremely stable.