Ableton Forum

I like both macs and windows machines, for various reasons. As far as which is better, there really is no answer to that.

The mac os takes up a smaller footprint, but only has to work on a more limited number of hardware configurations. There are very few viruses aimed at macs, but there are fewer resources to turn to in the event that you have a problem with a mac, as the mac segment of the marketplace is so small (for instance, there is rarely a mac reseller/service center in small towns as there isn't enough business to justify their existence). The cost of a new mac includes the os.

Windows, on the other hand, offers the opportunity for essentially unlimited hardware configurations with very easy, diy-capable hardware upgrades. If service is needed, it is readily available, as windows-based machines dominate the market, and due to the unlimited number of configurations and the significantly higher number of people using them, there is a drastically higher likelyhood that one of those users will encounter a problem. The cost of a non-mac machine may or may not include the cost of the os, depending on the distributor (i.e. Dell includes the cost of the os, and you have the option to spend more if you want the bigger os; falcon northwest does not include the os, although you can choose to purchase an os when you purchase your machine from them; if you are building your own, you will be buying the os seperately or using a license that you already own).

To say that one is more reliable because of fewer complaints is really not taking into account the extreme difference in the number of users of each platform. Assuming (for easy math and easy illustration) that you have 100 people. Of those, 5 of them have a mac, 90 of them have a machine running windows, and the last five are running a mix of the other os's. If one person with a mac has an issue, that is a small number of people having an issue, and one voice of complaint raises very little notice with the other 99 people. But if an equal percentage of windows users encounters issues with windows, that would be 18 people, and 18 voices of complaint would be difficult to ignore. In truth, it is highly unlikely that either os has anywhere near a 20% rate of problems, but there is an illusion that one is more stable simply because the voices complaining are so much fewer in number based strictly on the scale of market share. By that same token, however, the needs of 90 different people (out of our original 100) who are using windows are likely to be far more diverse than the needs of our 5 mac users, again, simply because of the scale of the population surveyed. So what we are looking at, is one os, that by its very spread of market share, must act as all things to all people (a complete impossibility, and considering the myriad number of uses that people have for computers,it is actually impressive that windows has been as stable as it is). Mac, on the other hand, is reaching a much smaller grouping, using a much smaller collection of configurations (a task that they have done very well at).

So, based on that, I would say that the reality is that they are both relevant to today's computing landscape, but that neither is the right answer all of the time.

I currently am running a windows based laptop that offers a hardware configuration that would put it on a level playing field with many desktop systems, but I plan on selling this system and get a mbp, simply due to the physical size that a laptop with my specs takes up (I wouldn't even really call it a laptop so much as a "desktop replacement system"). My system is running vista ultimate, and I have yet to encounter an issue, either in terms of audio performance (in either a controlled home studio environment or a live performance environment) or any other issue (without any tweaking whatsoever; I am running this system exactly as it came out of the box). I can honestly say that I am completely satisfied with the performance of my system. The only reason that I am making the switch is that I am performing more often now and I don't enjoy lugging my mammoth laptop around. So since I am replacing the current laptop with a new one, I figured, "why not go mac?" as I can always instal windows on it as well (thank you bootcamp!) to continue using my windows-only applications (or applications that run better in the windows environment) and also be able to run mac-only applications. Seems like killing two birds with one stone, really, but the real reason for the switch is primarily due to the physical size of the laptop, not anything regarding performance (I could probably find a windows laptop just as sleek, but I do kind of want to get back into using Logic for some things, and so I would need a mac sooner or later for that).

So, there you have it. My non-opinion (as I don't really care which os I use as long as I am able to complete my desired task, which, as far as I can tell, really means having access to both windows and osx) has been thrown into the arena.

DrXparaMental wrote:

Tone Deft wrote:DrX...

I'd feel wrong flaming you back. I truly feel sorry for you, if I could donate money to research I would. stay cool man, you might get your cred back. I'm trying with you, really trying. I don't know what you wrote, I skip your posts, just be cool.

yeah, I let one rip on Sub Funk, it's there for all to see as is my apology. I used strong words instead of a simple "I disagree." wow, the horror. he seemed to have weathered it just fine.

Tone!
So NICE of you to respond. I have you figured out bro, and why it is you have roughly four times as many posts as everyone else here. It's actually pretty obvious. You merely have trouble venting is all. You build up like a tea pot from a lack of attention and then when you whistle loud n proud you feel the need to apologize. It's a kind of "reinstatement of innocence". You should just stick to the unemotional, non social post engagements. That way you wouldn't feel so guilty all the time in retrospect. Thereby you would cut back on your needless posting by 75%. What do you think?

in my case it usually has to do with beer

Tone Deft wrote:nah, DrX and I are learning to understand each other. we're exchanging prescription recipes for our psych meds.

/laughing

I know..
I'm just at home croozing the netz looking for jolly japes and rawkus good times..
I see McQ714 has started his own thread inspired by my perceived lack of handy man skills..

Tone Deft wrote:nah, DrX and I are learning to understand each other. we're exchanging prescription recipes for our psych meds.

/laughing

with complete disregard for the world according to homobelly...it's amazing that I know the reason for my own foolishness, and yet I am caught up in it over and over again. One word, the most sinister element within my simple and twisted psyche: control. It's the ultimate detractor, the absolute contaminant.

Machinesworking wrote:This is so typical, and I'm not exaggerating, it's just so common, look at the difference in what RME say about USB audio with high end products like theirs! RME have raged at Apple too, they take no prisoners. Remember they're the ones who raged about the Agre firewire chipsets in macbook pros not mounting their drivers etc.

The point is though that even hardware problems are almost always less common on macs, and to some it's worth it to pay for the overpriced aluminum they wrap their hardware in to justify it.

ok so they gave props to Apple for their USB audio!?!

they also posted numbers saying the the Fireface UC was able to function with lower buffer sizes on the dual core iMacs than the quad-core and octo-core Mac Pros. what does that tell us?

Tone.. care to chime in on this??? what does a lower buffer size mean for audio playback?

DrXparaMental wrote: with complete disregard for the world according to homobelly...

Come on now...
The point remains..
You have no clue how to make a pot of tea.

McQ714 wrote:ok so they gave props to Apple for their USB audio!?!

Yep, the quote is:

Furthermore, Apple did a good job with USB Audio, ensuring great performance and stability inside OSX and Core Audio. Microsoft could well take a page from Apple's book here...

The OS is better at handling USB audio is what they're saying.

they also posted numbers saying the the Fireface UC was able to function with lower buffer sizes on the dual core iMacs than the quad-core and octo-core Mac Pros. what does that tell us?

That octo core Mac Pros are fast machines, but USB throughput is as hardware related as it is related to CPU performance, and any geek knows that something like USB throughput is handled by a single CPU, not 8 etc. If you're as much of a geek as you make yourself out to be you would know it's not uncommon for a simpler machine to do some things better than the largest set up you can get.

Tone.. care to chime in on this??? what does a lower buffer size mean for audio playback?

Right compare it to PCs and there's nothing to argue, so machines with different configurations even by a manufacturer that controls the hardware set up will have different responses to using a standard like USB for audio.
Why you think this is relevant is hilarious at best and proves my point more than yours, there are a ton of variables, Apples strong point both hardware and software wise is controlling and regulating them to a minimum of hassles.
Apple hardware is also reporting 32 sample buffer sizes on various machines,

[edit] OK dude, you're an idiot. Jesus how stupid??
Did you even bother to look at what was posted on the PC side of those tests?????

OMFG serious lol! 64 sample buffer in every case on Mac, one of the Imacs tested running a stand alone piano sampler could get to 32!! Notice the Mac Pros weren't tested with a single Sampler???

One or two 64 sample buffer settings on PC, mostly FAIL!!


(don't know why I'm compelled to post this, but this is all in fun, don't take this to heart, PCs can play video games really well!)

Machinesworking wrote:[edit] OK dude, you're an idiot. Jesus how stupid??
Did you even bother to look at what was posted on the PC side of those tests?????

OMFG serious lol! 64 sample buffer in every case on Mac, one of the Imacs tested running a stand alone piano sampler could get to 32!! Notice the Mac Pros weren't tested with a single Sampler???

One or two 64 sample buffer settings on PC, mostly FAIL!!


(don't know why I'm compelled to post this, but this is all in fun, don't take this to heart, PCs can play video games really well!)

actually as a matter of fact i did look at the PC tests. and i happened to notice that not one of the motherboards they used in the PC desktop testing was still available from Newegg (yes, i actually took the time to look them up)... meaning they at least a year old and obsolete!!! with the exception of the ADK computer with the i7 CPU which performed on par with the Mac Pro.

so, unless RME wants to send me a unit to test on my PC to report back, you can go f*** yourself with your failed attempt at belittling me.

McQ714 wrote: so, unless RME wants to send me a unit to test on my PC to report back, you can go f*** yourself with your failed attempt at belittling me.

butthurt are we?
you take this shit waaay too seriously.

Yet not serious enough to play fair with it. The BS about the iMac, and your whining about RME of all companies stacking the tests?? whatever dude, get a grip. It's widely known that most of the time RME are PC centric, great company, we both use them,(nice set up BTW!) but yeah, they try to bias tests towards macs.... right. They would hand Apple it's ass on a platter in seconds if they do something dumb, and they have.

Quit pouting and admit that for high end USB audio, modern macs are beating PCs, and it's due to the software egghead, remember the first comment RME made about how the OS/Core Audio allowed for lower latencies, or are you going to say RME of all companies are lying and mac centric? I'm not belittling you, you're doing it to yourself, just consider me the court jester.

Windows 7 could reverse this, be interesting to find out, but that's an argument for when it's out of beta.

McQ714 wrote:Tone.. care to chime in on this??? what does a lower buffer size mean for audio playback?

AFAIK... it means the CPU has to read and clear that buffer more often. CPUs can do a few things at once but their instructions are very linear, do a, then b, then c.

the samplerate determines how fast the data comes in, 48k sample rate means 48 thousand samples are received every second, or one sample every 20.8333uS. the bit depth determines how much data is coming in. 16 bit 48kHz data means 16 bits of data are coming in every 20.83333uS.

so, AFAIK a 92 sample buffer at 48kHz needs to be checked at least 92*20.83333uS = 1.916666 mS.

it's funny to watch other people go RAWRRR at each other and not me. whatever you two are on about might it be best settled by analyzing the Performance Test Thread? mucho data in them thar hills.



DrX - interesting diagnosis. take two hits and call yourself in the morning.

Tone Deft wrote: whatever you two are on about might it be best settled by analyzing the Performance Test Thread? mucho data in them thar hills.

Nope, it's just simple internet goofing. Certain PC users can NEVER admit when anything is better on macs, and some will go as far as to back themselves into a proverbial corner denying that it's true. I'm just sharpening my claws that's all.

OT of the 'debate' we're having, but it's crazy that RME are even able to get as good of performance from USB as we're getting from express cards and firewire!

Machinesworking wrote:we're having, but it's crazy that RME are even able to get as good of performance from USB as we're getting from express cards and firewire!

thing is, audio is a stupid slow signal. it's in the frigging kilohertz range, Driving Miss Daisy was faster. then you have USB, firewire and PCI which run in the Megahertz range, literally 1,000 times faster. one would have to draw out the connection diagram from A/D convert to USB converter to USB receiver to PCI bridge to PCI bus to CPU and whatnot to see where the bottleneck is. if it takes 10 more clock cycles to convert to USB, transmit and receive it, the it's negligible compared to the sample rate.

I love that about audio, it's such a freaking slow signal yet it's sooo cool. it's butt simple and very complex.

Tone Deft wrote:

Machinesworking wrote:we're having, but it's crazy that RME are even able to get as good of performance from USB as we're getting from express cards and firewire!

thing is, audio is a stupid slow signal. it's in the frigging kilohertz range, Driving Miss Daisy was faster. then you have USB, firewire and PCI which run in the Megahertz range, literally 1,000 times faster. one would have to draw out the connection diagram from A/D convert to USB converter to USB receiver to PCI bridge to PCI bus to CPU and whatnot to see where the bottleneck is. if it takes 10 more clock cycles to convert to USB, transmit and receive it, the it's negligible compared to the sample rate.

I love that about audio, it's such a freaking slow signal yet it's sooo cool. it's butt simple and very complex.

Do you have any ideas why it took so long for MOTU and RME to come up with powerful multi channel USB hardware? RME point to it being both the OS and hardware for instance? MOTU adopted earlier, but RME arguably make better hardware all around, and are much more forthcoming about problems with their machines and various PC/Mac configurations.

scott nathaniel wrote:

Dude, you posted the thumbnail, great job!
Fucking PC users can't use interwebs!
Here's the full size version.


Also, real answer is windows users would like to look at sex on their computers, but they're too afraid they'll get a virus.
[edit] Caught your ass anyways mr. edit! [/quote]