Should I switch from Mac to PC?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri May 09, 2003 12:21 am

congratulations my man, but look at it this way, you've done the mac thing
do the pc thing now and you can still do the mac thing later. it's all about opening up horizons not restricting them.

peace

robtronik · Post by **robtronik** » Fri May 09, 2003 3:14 am

Macs won't ever get faster than a PC......

LOL. oh okay.

IBM 970.

That is all.

rob.

robtronik · Post by **robtronik** » Fri May 09, 2003 3:21 am

Anonymous wrote:what pc laptops are you looking at that cost as much as a mac??????? Are you sure you need whatever is making the pc cost so much???? Unless you are recording on batteries, get a P4 desktop processor, not a mobile one--saves money and maxes out your performance. Unless you are buying a mobile P4 super-lightwieght sony or toshiba, you should be able to get a well-built, smoking fast toshiba, sony, gateway, or dell (i would rank their overall build quality in that order) for around $2100-$2300 shipped--last time i looked macs were much more. My toshiba satelite 2430 is XP Pro P4 2.4 gig, 1 gig RAM, all for under $2400 with accidental damage 3 year policy. Any laptop pc that costs much more than that, your are paying for lightweight, mobile technolgy that will cost you more, and perform less well than a heavy (but well constructed) laptop with a ripping fast desktop processor inside. With leftover money compared to buying a mac, you can get a sweet soundcard like RME multiface.

What?

My powerbook G4 867 mghz, 12" version with onboard USB, firewire, airport extreme was $2200. 40 gig hardrive and 640 mb RAM.

How is that more expensive than a PC.

Geez, you can get 900 mghz ibooks for less than $1400. Great build quality too.

Just setting the record straight. Also, some technology available on powerbooks aren't even available on the PC laptop side (i.e. airport extreme).

Just trying to balance out the outdated expense issue.

rob.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri May 09, 2003 3:23 am

this is getting funny, and ironic. waiting on a chip from IBM lol, it still won't
be a mac.

robtronik · Post by **robtronik** » Fri May 09, 2003 3:30 am

Anonymous wrote:this is getting funny, and ironic. waiting on a chip from IBM lol, it still won't
be a mac.

Well, the rebuttal was intended to rebuke the idea that PCs will always be faster than the macs.

Waiting? I don't think we are waiting - just trying to point out that you can "never say never".

rob.

Alex Reynolds · Post by **Alex Reynolds** » Fri May 09, 2003 3:40 am

rob,

don't bother explaining it to them. most of the windows crowd will think they are getting a bargain even if you show them otherwise. it's a field of distortion thing.

-alex

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri May 09, 2003 4:19 am

but honestly speaking alex, isn't it true that if the 970 chip is still slower than a pc, or lets say their speeds are comparable, won't you still be saying the same thing about macs that you always have for the rest of your life, I mean even if bill gates buys apple and puts a windows logo on them instead of the apple won't you still say the same thing. nothing personal towards you I've gotten good mac info from you but this is so silly. you know what if the 970 chip blows away the pc's like that fake benchmark floating around the net says, I'll just get a mac, cause I like them anyway just as I like pc's, the thing that's funny about mac users like yourself is that you're missing the point in some respects and if a very fast pc came out that would do a much better job than your mac you wouldn't use it. ??????? steves last name is jobs, not christ.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri May 09, 2003 4:40 am

let this quote by monolake from the bugs and problems forum put an end
to this

"monolake.
Guest
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2003 9:27 pm Post subject: Re: Mr. Monolake ... Mac

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, since i have been asked: i love apples industrial design skills, i like their never ending research in user interfaces even if i dislike lots of the OSX graphics. But i refused to buy a 17" pb because i am not willing to pay so much money for such a slow processor. And regardless of all Altivec optimisation it is a matter of fact that a 2.x Ghz PC runs faster then a 1 HGz powerbook. This is true for all audio applications.
I really hope for Apple and for us Mac users that the the new IBM 970 Chip will make the CPU gap between PC and MAC a bit smaler...

cheers, robert

End Quote!

astromass · Post by **astromass** » Fri May 09, 2003 5:14 am

tj, get that 17"....u deserve it, mate!
macs rule.

Alex Reynolds · Post by **Alex Reynolds** » Fri May 09, 2003 5:19 am

Anonymous wrote:...nothing personal towards you I've gotten good mac info from you but this is so silly... the thing that's funny about mac users like yourself is that you're missing the point in some respects and if a very fast pc came out that would do a much better job than your mac you wouldn't use it. ??????? steves last name is jobs, not christ.

Stop logging in as a Guest and I'll give you a serious answer that would surprise you.

-Alex

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri May 09, 2003 5:27 am

robtronik wrote:What?

My powerbook G4 867 mghz, 12" version with onboard USB, firewire, airport extreme was $2200. 40 gig hardrive and 640 mb RAM.

How is that more expensive than a PC.

Geez, you can get 900 mghz ibooks for less than $1400. Great build quality too.

Just setting the record straight. Also, some technology available on powerbooks aren't even available on the PC laptop side (i.e. airport extreme).

Just trying to balance out the outdated expense issue.

rob.

I don't even know why I'm replying to this but you are smoking some serious crack to even offer the idea that price is no longer a significant difference between machines.

Example.. I've got a Sony GRV-670.. 2.6Ghz, 512M Ram, 40Gig HD, Firewire, Memory Stick, USB, A/V Out, and Native Yamaha Soundchip which has proven to be as good as my Echo Indigo, and a huge high resolution 16" screen... for $1800...

that is NOT a significant difference?

Don't get me wrong, I like macs. I'm an Avid editor. I work on them all day long... but get a grip and stop being a hater. PC's are insanely fast NOW (not some wait until.. blah blah blah drops), and cheap.. and XP is a stable platform, though not nearly as beautiful as OS-X. But when it comes down to pushing it to the edge.. at the current moment you can push a PC a lot farther. A mac will choke long before my Sony.. I've confirmed that already.

Alex Reynolds · Post by **Alex Reynolds** » Fri May 09, 2003 5:27 am

Anonymous wrote:let this quote by monolake from the bugs and problems forum put an end to this...

I did not see this quote; perhaps you could post the link?

Anyhow, if you take slow code and run it against fast code it will be slower, all else the same.

Seems ontological, right? But step back for a second and think about how silence speaks volumes.

As there are multiprocessor Macs and all the G4s have Altivec, frankly there is no excuse for these problems.

Saying a 2 GHz Pentium is faster than a 1 GHz G4 is besides the point -- the code is clearly not given equal treatment. Other applications that bother to optimize do not have these issues and in fact perform on par with Intel code, if not better.

That's really what this discussion boils down to.

-Alex[/b]

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri May 09, 2003 7:52 am

I thought what the discussion boiled down to was the fact that pc's were touted for many a year to be not good for music, and not powerful enough for music, and that macs were better and more powerful.

well for sometime now that has simply not been the case, and today it is the furthest from the truth. everybody on this damn site has done the test
and that is what it boils down to. I respect Robert who is a mac user and the creator of live but has not been possesed by those stupid commercials telling people if they can't file or print they need a mac. He uses it because that's his choice but he's not trying to make people think that macs even come close to what pcs can do. if you notice none of the pc users are saying you can't create music fine on a mac, that would be stupid, theres too much proof against any insane assumption like that and the mac users would do well to take a lesson from that.

btw the post comes from the bugs and problems forum, some guy asking why his new 17" powerbook is running way slower than his 3 yr old p3 pc laptop and very upset about it. it's just two clicks away -look for 17" and you've found it.

Alex Reynolds · Post by **Alex Reynolds** » Fri May 09, 2003 2:06 pm

I don't really care what Windows users think about Macs, but if the developers don't care enough about their userbase to write faster code, then, yes, PCs will run Live faster than a Mac, at least for the time being.

I don't think that fact was ever in dispute -- I think what we're really talking about is how we still have a slow product even with the documented potential for improvement with DSP code. And Altivec isn't going away with the 970.

Here's hoping Ableton will listen to their Mac users and fix the bugs with their product.

Thanks,
Alex

PS. I administrate labs filled with of all kinds of computers, running all kinds of platforms: Windows, Mac OS, Linux, Solaris, IRIX. Windows machines by far are the biggest drain on my time as far as fixing strange software and hardware problems. I standardize on XP Professional for new purchases and laptops in particular have being giving my staff odd issues: sudden power-outs, battery problems, overheating. I simply do not run into these problems with anything near the same frequency with Apple hardware. I work with close to 500 machines in my group, so hopefully this provides one alternate view to those cheering PCs for their lower price.

Intel-mobo and component manufacturers cut corners everywhere they can because there are razor-thin profits in hardware manufacturing. You simply get what you pay for with cheaper equipment.

Moreover you will pay as much for a high-end Windows workstation as you do for Mac, for the same features. Feel free to pay a visit Dell, Gateway or IBM's website and make your own comparisons with what Apple sells. *shrug*

PPS. Get some guts and login. It's hard to take a Guest seriously.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri May 09, 2003 3:10 pm

"Moreover you will pay as much for a high-end Windows workstation as you do for Mac, for the same features. Feel free to pay a visit Dell, Gateway or IBM's website and make your own comparisons with what Apple sells. *shrug*"

Oh really? Well if we're making 'high-end workstation' comparisons here, I tried finding an equivalent from Apple to a quad Xeon, 500Mhz bus setup and couldn't find one with which to compare it with to be honest.

And no, I couldn't be bothered logging in but my name is Dave if that helps any.

Should I switch from Mac to PC?

pcs will always be faster than macs?

pc's more expensive than macs.....?

Re: pc's more expensive than macs.....?