What is The Fastest Powerbook equal to on a PC laptop

[JohnGalt]

When it comes to music (or any other application for that matter), platform and operating systems are meaningless to getting a task done. People forget this all the time and whine and moan about how this OS is better than that OS. Or this hardware is faster than that hardware. It's meaningless. The bottom line is getting the best tools (software application) so that you can make the best music you possibly can.

I use Cubase SX, Reason, and Live as my core applications. I own a Powerbook and a PC laptop as well as a G3 tower and a PC. When it came time to buy these apps, I chose the PC versions because:

A. PC music apps seem to get more frequent patches / updates.
B. They typically run faster on PC's.

It is irrelevant whether I like OS X over XP. PC's are more popular, which means there are generally more programmers for PC's. Plain and simple.

If you are serious about music, buy the tools that will get you there. If you don't like the performance of your Mac with Live, sell it and get a PC. If you can tolerate the performance issues, keep your Mac.

I've thought about selling my Powerbook many times, but I like OS X and some of the functions. But for music there simply aren't enough apps out, and the ones that are out have all sorts of probelms.

[Guest]

I live in NYC and you will have a hard time finding pro/working musicians that will admit that they use a PC. Mac might make up %5 of the PC market but when it comes to audio/visual they are the standard. When you ask around, not talking about bedroom musicians, the standard are Pro tools, Logic, and Performer. Cubase still does not get the creds, people will laugh at you if you use cakewalk.

Live and Reason are toys, nice jamming tools about it lays about there. Most VST are horrible.

In terms of comparing speeds its is dumb, There are a million PC makers out there, quality differs. The hottest PC laptop was the VIAO, but they look like shit now.

The comparison that should be made is taking the same composition and recreated in both machine, using the tools take get the job done. Here, the question is: Can I get the same level of performance on a Mac laptop, the answer is yes.

Comparing the same piece of software on both platforms is irrelevant, no one knows if they have equal level of quality? And being an artist I just want something that inspires and will get the job done. If Mac did not do this they would not be this popular in this business.

[FORMAT]

Cubase still does not get the creds, [...].

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on any board --- please, in view of this obviously uninformed statement, would you mind refraining from making general comments such as this in the future?

The comparison that should be made is taking the same composition and recreated in both machine, using the tools take get the job done. Here, the question is: Can I get the same level of performance on a Mac laptop, the answer is yes. .

Another wrong statement - --- I found, when I tried it, that the level of performance of the new 867 was barely better than what I'm used to on a similarly clocked intel machine ---- I'm seriously doubting that you make music "seriously" at all - you're probably just trolling with your ill-informed, manipulated-by-Apple's-advertising statements.
Now I don't want to take anything away from the Powerbooks and other Apple machines because they're beautifully designed, reliable computers with a terrific OS, but if you write something like that please back it up with FACTS, just as you demand in your above statement....

If Mac did not do this they would not be this popular in this business.

..... finally, a sentence that I can agree with

Cheers and Happy New Year to U All!

form.aat

[filarion]

note that he was referring to laptops in the performance statement. my experience with my powerbook 800 in comparison to friends' wintel laptops (Dell, usually, don't ask me what speeds, but p4 mobilities) I have no problems swapping .lso's with them so I think that performancewise (only using emagic instruments) the mac can keep up. live unfortunately is another ballgame, but I'm hoping that will change eventually.

as for the cubase comment, cubase on mac never had a good reputation and generally is less well-known in the states from my experience, so the comment is kinda valid. in contrast, noone here in europe that I know uses DP.

[Guest]

You started this thread, so who’s the troll. Don't take it personally, but its true. Yes SX is much much better but it’s only been out for a couple of months. People just do not discard what they've been using for years just because something else is new. Look what Steinberg did, they discard the their entire code base and replaced with new development. This was for goods, the old stuff sucked. Cubase is easy to use, but the midi timing sucked, automation was missing in action. I stated a fact of what I've seen, maybe it’s different in Munich.

You seem incapable of accepting others opinions
.
You stated you tried one, Well I work with them every day, we also have P4s—don’t like’m. We use DP3 which gives us great performance, MOTU squeezes performance out of Macs. In terms of doing tests, I haven't and most likely won't. Don't have too. You can run your little performance, but people that make their money doing this, pick macs over and over again.

PCs do have something Macs don’t, every piece of audio software is kracked for them. I saw Live2 for PC the second day it was out. I bet that I DO audio on a more pro base than you.

[FORMAT]

I stated a fact of what I've seen, maybe it’s different in Munich.

You seem incapable of accepting others opinions

.... This is not an opinion, it is a fact, as you've observed correctly in your own statement. I've seen otherwise, but nevermind.

You started this thread, so who’s the troll.

The first poster on this thread is "guest", certainly not me. Check your facts first

PCs do have something Macs don’t, every piece of audio software is kracked for them. I saw Live2 for PC the second day it was out. I bet that I DO audio on a more pro base than you.

I, for one, haven't seen any cracked versions because I don't even know nor care where to look --- so you seem to know more about that than me - too much time to browse cracked software sites maybe?

If you do radio jingles then we're at about the same level, if not then I'll gladly admit you're more "pro" than me.


I will stop responding to this rubbish. Sort your shit out first then post.

[filarion]

wow, great, let's fight about how "pro" everyone is. i'm sorry, but i don't see a point in fighting about -any- of the points mentioned here since you're both arguing from the "superior" position. you don't have to study psychology to know where that leads. plus, even if there were any facts both of you would still refuse to accept them. let's just stick to what we (hopefully) do best, using the tools, not being dicks about them.

just as a side note - i've never seen a mac-based radiostudio and i've seen a few. cool edit, sequoia, samplitude, i think i see a pattern. we don't use macs in our (small) campus radiostation either, except for office stuff. still not fair to compare overall performance based on raw performance of one program alone.

[FORMAT]

still not fair to compare overall performance based on raw performance of one program alone.

I agree 100% - That's probably the true bottom line for this thread. I'm guessing you're talking about efficiency and getting work done quicker because on macs because of their simplicity of use, inspiring interface and less breakdowns/crashes? --- Which is why I'll be diving into this "world", probably sooner rather than later.

This is my personal conclusion for this debate, and that's why I agree with people like JohnGalt, who use both for their respective advantages.

I'm cool with this topic now - we'll see how things develop software-wise.

Cheers, and again a great and !!peaceful!! new year...

form.aat

[JohnGalt]

Your point is well taken.

I do use and love both Macs and PC's. They both have their problems.

When I do graphics work, nothing beats my G4 tower. But when I need to do audio work, I use the PC's mainly, hands down. There is a much wider variety of music software for the PC's. And almost all audio cards work with them. Only a handful of quality sound cards have drivers for OS X. Period.


Back to my original comment, I don't really care about raw CPU power, the power in a computer is the SOFTWARE. And you have to admit there is a wider variety of software for Win-Tel systems. That's the truth. Even graphics software is starting to catch up with the macs. I used to work for a book publisher that had 30 Macs in their graphics department. When the money got tight, we stopped buying expensive Macs and went to PC's. Now there are 10 Macs and with the exception of "die hard Mac users", all the designers flock to the PC's.

People often say PC users are close minded, but truth be told, die hard Mac users are the ones with their eyes closed. Look at all your options.

The Mac suffers a bit from the same proplems which plague Linux. A lack of developers willing to put out SOFTWARE, and a lack of hardware support. It's too bad. I use Windows, Linux, and OS X, and I like Linux and OS X much better than Windows. But I will go with whatever OS has more SOFTWARE. SOFTWARE is key. The OS is secondary to the application.

[Guest]

The choice of operating system is never secondary to application. The two almost always go hand in hand.

Use what works for you.

For me, a Mac is more stable and lets me do more -- better -- and for less money in the end.

-Alex

[Mbazzy]

Make music, no [platform] war ...

[Guest]

Format you're a poser and a loser. Your name saids it all.

[JohnGalt]

Indeed.

I meant no flaming at all. I use both OS X and Win XP and enjoy them both.

In fact, I have been experimenting with different audio apps for Linux lately, but nothing comes close to the quality of apps for OS X, OS 9, or Win XP. That's too bad because the Linux enviroment rarely crashes. But an OS is only as good as the SOFTWARE apps that are available. That was the point I was trying to make all along!

Hope everyone's New Year was fun and safe.

[JohnGalt]

The choice of operating system is never secondary to application. The two almost always go hand in hand.

Use what works for you.

For me, a Mac is more stable and lets me do more -- better -- and for less money in the end.

-Alex

We obviously have a difference of opinion and I mean no disrespect, but the choice of an OS is almost ALWAYS secondary to applications. It is the reason that Linux has almost zero share of home desktops. Most home users use Quicken, Word, etc,etc, which are not available for Linux. That's why no home users buy it. It does have great firewall, web services, etc, which is why it makes ground in business environments and why more businesses are moving toward it.

Why has Apple lost market share over the last several years? Hardly any new GAMES come out on Apple first (or at all), and if you look at the number of titles of all other software apps, it pales in comparison to PC.

Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying. I like OS X. I think it's awesome. I would even say I like it much better than XP. But the reason 8 out of the 10 systems I have in my studio and home run XP is because of the wide variety of SOFTWARE and hardware available to them, period.

It's simple economics. Apple dropped the ball in the beginning by not offering more incentives to developers to publish titles for their platform. They wanted to stay proprietary on the hardware and that messed them up, too. I wish it would have been different, but I'm a realist.

Now, back to making music using both Macs and PC's.

[Jon]

Fun thread, I believe it was not the lack of developers. Apple had great apps. Remember, PCs were mostly text base and 16 bits till the mid 90's and win95 was not a good OS. But PCs were cheap, and everyone sold them. Apple, got too comfortable selling $7000> systems, making 25% profits on each system. If people thinks Macs are expensive, they should look how much they were going for in the late 80's - early 90's.