how come all the big named dj's use macs?

inis · Post by **inis** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:47 pm

funkdefino wrote:Actualy Hawtin is using an Alienware. So, that makes him PC. He admits that the powerbook just isn't fast enough.

Actually, this isnt true. I actually saw him just under 12 hours ago, and he was rocking the powerbook and seemed very happy about it at the end of the night when he lifted it up to the crowd.

quandry · Post by **quandry** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 9:39 pm

Don't really care for his music much, but doesn't BT use Live on a pc??? Facts talk and bullshit walks--read the performance threads and see which machines are faster, which give you more bang for buck. Sure, you can then diss pcs for viruses and crashes and whatever other things you need to rationalize a mac. That said, personal experience tells me that a decent pc that is properly set up can be extremely stable with Live, as in scores of gigs over the last three years with zero crashes whatsoever live. Plus, I ignore all the over-exaggerated "don't use your music pc on the net, don't use it for anything but audio..."--I'm always on the net, and use it for all sorts of graphics and CAD applications--no problems.

I think part of the issue is that there literally hundreds of pc laptops out their--tons of manufacturers, tons of different specs and parts inside. Tons of different users at different levels of computer skills, tons of soundcards. Thus, there are bound to be setups that won't work due to hardware/driver/soundcard issues, or user ignorance. With macs, there are only a few flavors, and they are all built exactly the same, and thus one can safely bet that one mac will perform just like another. They are stable, but they cost more than pcs for less power with Live, plain and simple. And don't think that macs NEVER crash--I've seen it happen to people live with my own two eyes. Basically, if you do some research and buy a good pc and soundcard (I can vouch for toshiba/RME), and set up your computer properly (musixxp.net is helpful), pcs can be great. Macs are a little simpler in terms of knowing that it will work, and that your configurations is the same as thousands of other happy users--its convenient, but it ain't cheap. Do what makes sense for you, don't buy into hype, or feel you are inadequate on a pc--they can and do work great with Live, and the key thing is that Live is stable as an application.

Ryan

smutek · Post by **smutek** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 10:04 pm

quandry wrote:Don't really care for his music much, but doesn't BT use Live on a pc???
Ryan

I'm not into him either so I don;t know what he is using now, but there was a video going around a while back of BT demoing live and he was using a powerbook.

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 10:13 pm

none of this geekery is addressing the main point -
why do people use a powerbook when the specs say that an intel is faster?

most people might say "oh PC's crash all the time, they all have viruses, etc."
I do think those ideas may have an influence on a superstar DJ's buying preference, but mainly I think it's about ease.

When I bought my PC Laptop there were choices of P4 or centrino to comprehend, buss speeds, onboard firewire compatibilities, Sony or Toshiba, or what about more mysterious manufacturers, etc, etc. Now, I like computers, but all this bored me to tears, and was a bit traumatic really.

with a mac you effectivley have a choice of 'small', 'medium' or 'large'.

add that to the power of the brand and you have your answer.

EG: let's buy a coffee

Do you want a frabiscous and flobottle tripple flatte with added umsk
or a starbucks cappuccino ?

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:27 pm

You wann pull? Get teh PowerBook.

Easy as pei.

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:46 pm

some folks feel like using Windows on stage is like sky diving without a parachute.

of course thats not always the case, but when a performance is about comfort people will always use the platform they are most comfortable on.

that's all there is to it.

please kill this thread now.

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:51 pm

Let's not forget that if you have the money to spend, and don't particularly care for Microsoft, ( and who does really?), well apple seems the lessor of two evils.

Sure PC's are faster, and i'll be happy when the Intel powerbooks are here, but honestly I'm not going to rush out and buy one. I started off using a 400mhz mac, and my workflow is geared towards the sort of efficiency that comes with that sort of low CPU power. I think about switching to PC for the power, but really at this point I'm pretty happy with what I have.

I think you'll find that to be true of a lot of "pros", they use old gear, and worry more about the performance flexibility than whether PC or mac is better. Also a lot of pros print to audio, a habit from low CPU times, and aren't really in need of the extra CPU.

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:53 pm

AdamJay wrote:please kill this thread now.

Jeez Adam? you've been hanging out at OSXAudio huh?

hacktheplanet · Post by **hacktheplanet** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:54 pm

It's because Macintosh portable computers have glowing apples on the case. Duh.

quandry · Post by **quandry** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:02 am

AdamJay wrote:some folks feel like using Windows on stage is like sky diving without a parachute.

some folks base their ideas about pcs based on windows 95 and crappy machines. If mac lovers talked less trash and tried out well built pcs with XP, properly set up for audio with a good soundcard, they would be talking less trash. Sure they'd still moan about how "ugly" pcs are, and how "ugly" XP is, but the G4 tibook owners I know who have seen how much Live can handle on my pc are just short of flabbergasted. Instead, all sorts of things are said that are out-dated, or refer to crappy machines with driver errors, or people that don't use AV software--surf these forums to find scores of people who perform live with Live on pc's and have nothing but good things to say about their ACTUAL EXPERIENCE, not silly analogies to sky diving.

inis · Post by **inis** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:30 am

smutek wrote:
quandry wrote:Don't really care for his music much, but doesn't BT use Live on a pc???
Ryan
I'm not into him either so I don;t know what he is using now, but there was a video going around a while back of BT demoing live and he was using a powerbook.

Ya, BT definetly uses mac's live.

robtronik · Post by **robtronik** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:35 am

I think there is something to be said for getting that extra power at the risk of moving off of OS X for Live performance. We'll see. I should be getting my laptop this week (assuming they ship when they say they are going to ship). I feel like all laptops are subject to failure if not tended to carefully.... I've had one instance where I wasn't sure my PB was even going to start up for some reason and then it did... but while using it on stage when the CPU hit 60%, I started getting weird drop outs and stuff from Live. This is on a top of the line 15" PB. Unacceptable to me.

So, we will see if I can get the performance I want with a 2.26 ghz centrino. I hope so.... I'm selling my PB.

rob.

D DAS · Post by **D DAS** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:42 am

macs are more sexy and elegant. and on stage elegance and sex are priceless

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:46 am

quandry wrote:
AdamJay wrote:some folks feel like using Windows on stage is like sky diving without a parachute.
some folks base their ideas about pcs based on windows 95 and crappy machines. If mac lovers talked less trash and tried out well built pcs with XP, properly set up for audio with a good soundcard, they would be talking less trash. Sure they'd still moan about how "ugly" pcs are, and how "ugly" XP is, but the G4 tibook owners I know who have seen how much Live can handle on my pc are just short of flabbergasted. Instead, all sorts of things are said that are out-dated, or refer to crappy machines with driver errors, or people that don't use AV software

sure, that's all pretty much true.

but the thread is about -"why do big name DJs choose Macs"

and the answer to that isn't based on performance, it's based on -
1: perception of instability of windows (false or not)
2: ease of choosing a mac (option 1,2 or 3)
3: branding of a mac (you are cool!)

For the purposes of a DJ the mac route makes sense, it fulfils their personal criteria, perhaps they are the sort of people who dont like AV software or tech research? those things aren't that thrilling to everyone.

it doesn't matter whether something is or isn't the supreme technical choice, it's the perception of fitness that makes the difference in this situation.

To a busy 'big name' DJ choosing a mac is easy cool and safe. as opposed to difficult, er nerdy and possibly 'unsafe'

elementv · Post by **elementv** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:47 am

The os is SO MUCH BETTER than windows, and no viruses!