Macbook Pro for recording? [Archive] - Jordan Rudess' Community Forums

whitelightening

09-29-2009, 04:50 PM

What are your thoughts on this? I'm looking at potentially getting the top level Macbook Pro, but my hesitation is whether or not the mobile processors used in these machines will be up to the challenge of recording some track-intensive projects in Digital Performer 7 (say, songs with 60+ parts after effects, automation, etc.). Obviously the Mac Pro tower would be the best option, but portability also has advantages.

Since I've basically lost touch with the computer world for the better part of 4 to 5 years now, I'm not at all knowledgeable about the raw power of mobile processors for audio production (in addition, the base model is loaded with 4GB of RAM and upgradeable to 8GB). Please help a poor, tech-challenged guy out, will ya?

-=AnatomiC=-

09-30-2009, 02:45 AM

TheMayhem

09-30-2009, 03:05 AM

Well, not sure about 60 parts.... I mean, even if you are recording a 70 men orchestra, you still don't need that much.
If you do that kind of recording, than you should know all about mobile recording - so I guess you don't that stuff...

Otherwise, if MacBook Pro can't do it, than nothing can - unless you are speaking about multi track recorders, but they are not as flexible as a laptop computer and I don't think they are better.

Laptops are getting closer to desktop computers every year.

MacBook Pro should be cheap, in comparison to all the other equipment you will need - like mics and A/D converters

unless you ABSOLUTELY need the mobility, go for the mac pro, it's a whole different class of machine, literally. like the imac and macbook are reasonably comparable but neither of them come close to the mac pro. plus it depends on how serious you are about recording. another approach could be going with a PC based system, oh right, god forbid anyone use anything other than OSX for audio. (sorry guys, not a fan of kool aid) anyways, there's no performance advantages to having a mac afaik unless you get the mac pro, which you spend almost the same amount of money to build. the macbook is a decent machine, but don't expect to be getting great performance from it. they're just not designed for it. my advice would be get a better idea of your needs before you purchase a system, plenty of members from this forum (including myself) can give you good advice on what to do.

if you don't know what to think about, here's some questions you could ask yourself.

1) how many simultaneous tracks do i need to record?
2) do i want to use plugins or real processors?
3) what sort of instruments am i going to record?
4) am i going to be spending more time doing midi sequencing or audio editing?
5) what's my budget?

-=AnatomiC=-

09-30-2009, 03:21 AM

Come on - even an average PC laptop is more than enough for most recordings, no need to go overkill. Mac Pro is designed for good mobile performance.
I mean - how much channels do you need? 16 is just more than enough for pretty much everything. You can do a lot with just 8.

For recording, you don't need much effects - clean tracks don't use much processing power. Effects and VSTis do...

While you will be stuck in your home studio with a MacPro, you could go and record anywhere you want with a MacBook Pro. (unless you take your MacPro with you, which would be silly if you ask me)

I say, as long as you don't do huge orchestral recordings professionally, MacBook will cover all your needs big time.

sparkey

09-30-2009, 05:41 AM

i still want to know what on earth will take up 60 tracks

PinkFloydDudi

09-30-2009, 09:51 AM

If performance is really a concern for you, the top performing computers are still PCs. (Sorry mac fans).

However like others have asked, what in the WORLD do you need 60 tracks for in a mobile unit like that?

For most recording needs, especially mobile, the MacPro is a great buy.

whitelightening

09-30-2009, 11:47 AM

-=AnatomiC=-

09-30-2009, 01:24 PM

If performance is really a concern for you, the top performing computers are still PCs. (Sorry mac fans). .

Great - you just made this thread 5 pages longer... :mad:

PinkFloydDudi

09-30-2009, 01:50 PM

Great - you just made this thread 5 pages longer... :mad:

lol, it shouldn't. I have no problem saying that at this point Mac is safer from viruses and such (might even give you stability), but in terms of hardware, PC still has the lead spot.
(All conversations regarding PC's pretend that Vista never existed by the way!).

A mac with the same processing specs as a PC is usually 1.5x- 2x more expensive. And if you do go to the very top end stuff, it is PC based. One could make an argument for Unix and such, but those still use PC hardware.

How many mac servers you hear of in companies? Not many.

I try not to get into the mac vs. pc debate... I'm an IT graduate, I work in the industry. The above are facts, not really opinion.

The "which one is better" debate is silly, because both can do 99% of the stuff equally as well. For an average user, you will never see the 1% that one can do that the other can't.

So it comes down to which you feel more comfortable using, but that doesn't make it "better" than the other.

My only problem with Mac is the price difference!

I'm hoping Windows 7 fixes the stability difference between the 2. From my brief use of it, it seems pretty awesome.

whitelightening

09-30-2009, 04:06 PM

-=AnatomiC=-

09-30-2009, 04:26 PM

The "which one is better" debate is silly, because both can do 99% of the stuff equally as well.

This is why people are debating - some think than Macs do some stuff much better... there is a saying - 'once you go Mac, you never go back....'
It's true - a lot of people switch from PC to Mac, but no one seems to do the opposite.

About servers - this is correct, but now we are talking about audio applications, and I think most people use Macs nowadays... and the people who don't, never had a Mac before.

I can't say much about performance difference, but I do like the design of new MacBooks...

TheMayhem

09-30-2009, 04:51 PM

Recording one track at a time is it for me. And I would like to keep it under $3,000.00. I would honestly be recording a mix of midi, audio and vsti's. Essentially I'm looking at this for a setup:

computer of somekind (currently don't have)
Roland Fantom G
Access Virus TI
MOTU Digital Performer 7
Stylus RMX
Symphonic Instrument

as far as the question about 60 tracks:

I like to mix drums tracks separately, so right there is up to 8 tracks for the drums alone plus extra for the effects channels. I always work with a lot of vocals so I figure at least 7 vocal tracks, 5 to 10 keyboard parts, one bass track, 3 or 4 guitar tracks, etc. Then you figure in all od the individual effects, automation, etc. and the 60 or so sounds about minimum.

Maybe I'm just extremely inefficient in my thinking but the tracks can add up VERY fast! He'll, Devin Townsend's new album "Addicted" supposedly has in the range of 250 tracks PER SONG! (not that I'm anywhere close to him as a musician).

do you want to do everything on your own? or are you looking to just track/sequence and then take your stuff to a professional studio and have someone mix/master it?

since it looks like you're going to do a decent amount of midi sequencing and minimal audio recording, a macbook should be fine (a work around is you can bounce tracks to sound files and then import them to reduce the strain of using multiple vsti's)

another thing to look out for is snow leopard support (when dealing with interfaces) it seems like presonus, and RME both support snow leopard currently, i don't know about any others except m-audio, but their drivers suck regardless of OS.

my advice:
get the 15" mbp (not the 17) and put the most ram you can, best processor, and a 7200 rpm drive in.
get an interface with more than one line input (as you're using a virus and a fantom g) i'm going to go with atleast four so you can have both running in stereo.
spend some money for a nice monitor, and some nice monitors for when you're at home and get some headphones for when you're on the go.

but yeah, for your uses a mbp would be fine, but you lose out on alot of DSP power that way.

TheMayhem

09-30-2009, 04:55 PM

sparkey

09-30-2009, 06:48 PM

of course

trust devin townsend =P

spose if you are going make something akin to his you need every track you can get

...speaking of addicted who else cant wait for it...

none the less
if you really need to be able to have mobile recording, get the laptop
it should be able to do it...those macbook pros are powerful stuff

i would agree, get the 15inch screen, just buy a second screen for a couple of hundred, im sure you can plug it in...and have that for when your mixing at home
even if you have to as was said, bounce stuff out and import them as wave files to reduce strain ect, you hopefully will be fine

PinkFloydDudi

09-30-2009, 08:18 PM

This is why people are debating - some think than Macs do some stuff much better... there is a saying - 'once you go Mac, you never go back....'
It's true - a lot of people switch from PC to Mac, but no one seems to do the opposite.

About servers - this is correct, but now we are talking about audio applications, and I think most people use Macs nowadays... and the people who don't, never had a Mac before.

I can't say much about performance difference, but I do like the design of new MacBooks...

Damn you! gonna get me started!!!! lol.

Some people THINK macs do things better...

They think because they have been using a PC for 5 years and it got slow, or got a virus after surfing the net for 5 years, they then upgrade to a brand new mac and say "See it goes way faster and runs smoother!".

Of course your brand new computer is going to run things smoother than your old one...and once you buy a new computer, you aren't about to switch back anytime soon.

How many people do you know purchased a brand new Mac and a brand new PC at the same time and compared things that way?

If we both could spend $1,200 (come oct 22nd when Windows 7 comes out), the PC I could buy would floor any mac you could get.

Windows messed up with Vista big time. That was their chance to hold people and they really blew it just as MAC was making a nice push for their market share.

Think of it like this also, PC had like a 90% market share. When something new comes out of course they are going to lose some. People also aren't going to go switch back right away after buying a $2,000 computer unless something is horribly wrong with what they purchased. If you step outside the audio world, the VAST majority of people still use PCs.

Audio and digital recording really came up rather quickly (like the last 5 or so years), which just happened to coincide with the crappy Windows Vista, and Mac making a huge push for market share.

In short, the stars aligned for Mac.

Ask someone who switched exactly why they think Mac is better? Runs smoother? Well compared to what? Vista? A 10 year old Windows XP machine?

I could go on with other reasons, such as the fact that hackers wanted a crack at that 90% market share so made viruses and such for Windows. If MAC had that 90% share, guess which OS would be full of people trying to push viruses around?

I would take a PC with windows XP Pro, and especially a PC with Windows 7 over the top-of-the-line mac any day.

Again in the end, BOTH are perfectly fine for 99% of what the common user does.

Unlike keyboards though, you can't really sit there and experience the different operating systems without actually making a purchase.

/rant!

(i do actually like discussing this and could do it for days on end...lol.)

Mick Larouche

09-30-2009, 08:39 PM

You have to remember that now, Macs uses the same hardware of PCs. Beside a motherboard using EFI in replacement of the BIOS, the rest is the same. You can install a vanilla Leopard using a EFI booter on a standard PC (although patched versions are much easier to install). The difference all come to the OS. Yes, you do pay 600-800$ more just the look of the case and Mac OS X for INFERIOR SPECS.

Both Mac OS X and Windows are very capable for recoding and sequencing. You just need a good soundcart. I used to get high MIDI latency using Sound Blaster Audigy 2 (a supposed 'semi-pro' cart). My M-Audio Fast Track Pro works so much better.

After that, it all come to the DAW software. Mac OS X have Logic and Digital Performer which are both solid. On Windows, you can Sonar, FL Studio. On both, you have Reason and Pro Tools.

Do not guess wrong, I like both OS :) My biggest gripe with Macs is the way too overpriced hardware

Omega Monkey

10-01-2009, 01:02 AM

Well, to settle this part of the argument, I am much more comfortable using, and will only buy, a Mac. I will not buy or build a Windows PC at this time. I, essentially, do not care about the price difference one bit.

It always cracks me up, when people make up their minds about something, and then come here (or places like this) and ask for advice anyway, knowing they aren't actually going to take it, and really just wanting everyone to pat them on the back for their "great" choice.

Seriously, if you don't care about the price, and you refuse to entertain options other than Mac, what is the purpose of this thread?

I'll tell you this, the $500-1000 premium you will pay just to have the Steve Jobs seal of approval on your computer as opposed to getting an equivalently spec'd PC could buy you a LOT of (pick whichever apply)...

other synths (happens to be pretty much the exact price range of a nice used VA)
outboard recording gear (as cool as plugins are for wild and crazy stuff, hardware is still better for the basics)
microphones
monitors*
beer
hookers
etc...

But I guess if you want to blow that much to just to have a brushed aluminum case for your computer, that is your right (at least if you're American. I dont know what kinds of rights other countries have regarding such things).

MacBook Pro should be cheap, in comparison to all the other equipment you will need - like mics and A/D converters

OR he could do the intelligent thing and actually spend that money ON those things.

*What are you listening on now? You do realize that good studio monitors are one of THE most important components of turning out good recordings, right? And for a "barely acceptable" 2.1 system you're going to be in for at least $600.

So unless you make so much money that you literally cant spend it fast enough, or you already have everything you might ever want for a studio (highly doubt it, there's always something that could be better), getting a mac is a bit on the dumb side. No offense, but hey, you did ask for people's input (even though you didnt actually want it).

-=AnatomiC=-

10-01-2009, 03:16 AM

Yeah - pwned lol... you are saying that you won't even think about getting something else - so why asking then? Probably only to hear what you want to hear. Like 99% of the people who ask for advice.
And now back to our Mac vs PC debate: round 1614!

The fact that most people switch from an old PC to Mac, and then say - OMFG EVERYTHING IS FASTER!!! - is true, and it's silly if you ask me.

But my PC is new, and I can't say that it runs as smooth as expected.

Spending extra 700-800 bucks on a computer does makes sense, if it runs better. I have Adam A7 monitors - but for mixing, monitoring above certain level just doesn't make any sense anymore... you can mix your music on 10000 euro monitors, only to be very disappointed when you hear it on regular cheap HiFi speakers. The most important thing is to have a good reference...
As long as your system is decent, I don't see any point in going higher - unless you are a mastering engineer of course.

Omega Monkey

10-01-2009, 03:21 AM

Not really to your last point (about spending extra on the computer, before you edited). Because when you are talking about Mac vs PC, even if it were true that a Mac ran better than a similiarly spec'd PC, the fact of the matter is that in the vast range of the price difference, if you just spent on a PC what you would spend on that Mac, the Mac is no longer in close to the same league, spec wise.

So that argument doesn't really hold water. It's like a fancy $1000 brushed aluminum pasta strainer.

BTW, I wasn't asking about your montitors, anatomic, but about whitelightening's (what a racist user name). But I have to disagree with you a bit on that too.

Anyone who is doing ANY phase of recording (ie tracking, mixing, or mastering) will benefit from having better monitors.

There is one school of thought that you should mix for crappy systems since thats what most people have. But WTF cares about crappy systems? If you have a crappy system, you know it's crappy, and you expect crappy sound, and if you cared that much about it, you would have something better.

Meanwhile, if you mix on a "neutral" system, which is what good to excellent studio monitors should be, it will be able to sound it's best on a wide variety of systems, but most importantly on the BEST systems, which by nature are designed to be neutral, and therefore bring out what the artist intended.

So by all means, double check your tracking, mixes, etc... on low quality systems (it can help sometimes to identify anomalies, etc..., but any "different" system will do that), but the "neutral" mix should never be significantly sacrificed for the benefit of how it sounds on a low quality system.

Actually, I've often thought about the idea of having 2 mixes of any particular album. You have your normal mix which is done on a neutral system. Then you have your lo-fi mix which is done on a boombox or a car stereo or something like that.

-=AnatomiC=-

10-01-2009, 05:22 AM

I'm not saying that you should mix on a crappy system... I just think you shouldn't spend 10000 euro on your system... couple of, let's say Mackie HRs, will do the job and they are not that expensive.
You just can't have a neutral system - because every system is different. I mean - what is neutral? If there is only 1 system that is neutral by specifications, and every other is crappy, you can't really call it neutral, can you?

orphe

10-01-2009, 07:16 AM

But my PC is new, and I can't say that it runs as smooth as expected.

Having a new PC doesn't mean it will be fast. If it is a PC you built yourself than that's not normal. If It's an OEM PC then it is surelly loaded with full of crappy slowing software. Install a clean Windows over it and see the difference. I nowadays record and only use Windows 7 which is more stable thant Vista, runs with less needed memory. They didn't lower the spec for it to seem better than Vista.

Now on the conversation. The difference between a MAC and a PC in theses days is the OS almost all software are available on the 2 OSes (except digital performer , sonar, Logic) You should build your environment and finish with the choice of the pc (either mac, windows). Yeah there's the aluminum case, the working space difference, but aluminum -.-'., and Working space is adaptable on windows more than on mac.

I'm not a windows fan neither a Mac OS fan. I take the one is at my hands when I can. If i would have choice i would take Linux with the MAC User Interface and Ease, And the fact that windows is having all the softwares developped for it.

PinkFloydDudi

10-01-2009, 10:08 AM

2 of you already took the words out of my mouth about the guy asking for advice...so I'll just ignore and skip my rant on him!

Curious though, you bought a new PC with what on it? If you say Vista, I made the claim in my first (or 2nd) post that Vista was to not be included in any conversation having to do with Windows. If you did buy a new PC, I think you will be exceptionally happy if you upgrade to Windows 7. Performance wise its great, stability wise it blows vista out of the water...Its really a great OS.

The rest of what I would have replied has been discussed by others. The basic being - set a specific price and go get a PC for that price and a Mac for that price and the PC will outperform the Mac almost every time.

Honestly, I think its inevitable that the 2 systems start working together in terms of compatibility anyway. No reason why a file on a mac shouldn't be able to be opened in Windows.

Enigma™

10-01-2009, 10:20 AM

I'm going to end the debate right here about this whole Mac -vs- PC garbage.

First mistake: It's not "Mac Vs PC"

Dumbasses - PC stands for Personal Computer. Macintosh makes Personal Computers.

The differentiation here is that you need to specify WINDOWS. That's the difference. WINDOWS.

Now we're talking Mac Vs Windows. Well, that's still not quite right, because Mac makes computers, but their operating system is what drives the hardware (which fundamentally isn't any different anymore so it's a moot point).

Now the debate is OSX vs Windows.

Now we have a real debate.

Well, I've been in the IT industry for many years... And I've dealt with both platforms.

If you put OSX with a 1.6 ghz processor and 1gb of ram (Let's say OSX 10.4 for the sake of argument, we're dealing with Tiger, not Leopard) and benchmark it vs Windows XP SP3 which is still slightly older... They're both going to operate sufficiently. They both work, they both run fast, cleanly, smooth and most of all: SAFELY.

Sure there are viruses, moreso for Windows - I get that. It's a commercial thing, but I'm not going to start a conspiracy theory about how McAfee or Nortons makes their own viruses to stay in business.

Anyway - Performance wise - The hardware isn't that different... The software works differently yes. Agreed.

So this debate about who is better is from a few different perspectives.

Well Mac is clean and runs fast as hell when you get it out of the box. This I agree. I installed OSX into one of my computers that runs non-mac hardware, and it worked beautifully.

Then installed Windows (MANUALLY, none of this proprietary OEM garbage that comes with HP, Dell, Compaq, etc.) and it ALSO worked beautifully.

Both fast, both worked perfectly out of the box.

The point here in the end is that people are making BAD comparisons. Sure, you take Vista (which looks pretty but overall doesn't work that well) and put it against OSX 10.5, and OSX is going to mop the floor with it.

But if you tweak Vista enough, correct the errors that the Vista programmers didn't consider, and suddenly you have a VERY powerful machine in either case.

Think about this:
Imagine programming an OS for 1 type of hardware. You don't have to worry about driver support, because you have native code implemented in all your hardware. You have less time worrying about drivers and other things, and you can focus on stability.

The Windows platform is the opposite though, where they're trying to be as flexible as possible on ALL platforms from Business to Personal to Professional, and that includes support for crazy products that all these 3'rd party manufactures with poor programming for drivers includes...

Just so everyone knows - most instabilities aren't from windows themselves, but from the poor drivers that have been created by these third party hardware folks.

Anyway - if you're going to debate about Windows Vs OSX, eventually you'll have to just agree to disagree because most mac folks hate windows, and most windows users haven't used a Mac to be able to appropriately debate.

It's just the way it is... But don't say it's PC vs Mac - I run Linux which is WAY more powerful and stable than either platform... And that's just my opinion again.

So please drop the debate... And the original poster... You've already been called out on it: Why post a question if you already have your answer?

I know you wanted to know if you should pay for the laptop or the server-box, we said the server box will be way more powerful... You have a decision to make now.

PinkFloydDudi

10-01-2009, 11:12 AM

I'm going to end the debate right here about this whole Mac -vs- PC garbage.

First mistake: It's not "Mac Vs PC"
Really? Because Macintosh in their commercials even says "mac vs PC". Think everyone here knew that by PC, people were referring to Windows.

Hence the: "I'm a mac, and I'm a PC" in the commercial. So take it up with the companies that produce the stuff, not with us who simply use the terminology they gave us.

Dumbasses
Was that necessary?

Anyway - if you're going to debate about Windows Vs OSX, eventually you'll have to just agree to disagree because most mac folks hate windows, and most windows users haven't used a Mac to be able to appropriately debate.
But some have used both...and just because you agree to disagree doesn't mean you can't discuss the benefits vs. the negatives of each from different user perspectives.

It's just the way it is... But don't say it's PC vs Mac - I run Linux which is WAY more powerful and stable than either platform... And that's just my opinion again.
It IS PC vs MAC...again, look at the commercials from Mac and Windows if you'd like. I think Macintosh and Windows have a BIT more say as to what their products are called than you do.
And Linux, from a general user standpoint, sucks. More stable and powerful? Maybe... If linux was so awesome, everyone would be using it by now.

Not quite sure why you had to get insulting and bust out the name-calling in a rather civil discussion. Even though the subject has been beaten to death, so have lots of other subjects here.

-=AnatomiC=-

10-01-2009, 11:54 AM

Who cares what PC stands for? (and I know that it stands for Personal Computer, and that let's say iMac is a personal computer also, deuh).

But if you say 'peesee', everybody will think about a computer with Windows on it...
This isn't the first time when a word looses it's original meaning and becomes something else - this happens all the time!

Enigma™

10-01-2009, 11:58 AM

Really? Because Macintosh in their commercials even says "mac vs PC". Think everyone here knew that by PC, people were referring to Windows.

Because everything in commercials are accurate...

Hence the: "I'm a mac, and I'm a PC" in the commercial. So take it up with the companies that produce the stuff, not with us who simply use the terminology they gave us.

Okay, that's fair - the general population automatically goes to the Mac-vs-PC thing right away, when we're really talking about the same thing.

Was that necessary?

It was an expression of my opinion and wasn't directed to any 1 individual specifically - if you took offense to it - my apologies. It's more, to me, an expression of frustration over the lack of knowledge about the topic and the people who partake in these debates without relevant information. (again, not meant to be directed to anyone here in the forum, or even in general)

But some have used both...and just because you agree to disagree doesn't mean you can't discuss the benefits vs. the negatives of each from different user perspectives.

Sure, I have no problem with that, but this whole debate came out of nowhere from the middle of this thread. It's not about discussing the negatives and positives - I think it SHOULD be more about clarification about misunderstandings between the systems. Which isn't happening nor do I think is going to happen.

It IS PC vs MAC...again, look at the commercials from Mac and Windows if
you'd like. I think Macintosh and Windows have a BIT more say as to what their products are called than you do.
And Linux, from a general user standpoint, sucks. More stable and powerful? Maybe... If linux was so awesome, everyone would be using it by now.

What you're talking about isn't their programmers - it's their marketing department. It's a generalized term for something that's inaccurate and when you're talking tech (not marketing) there should be a differentiation in there.

About linux sucking from a general user standpoint couldn't be further from the truth. The reason "no-one" uses it is because it's not made by a huge company. It has no commercial advertising or multi-million dollar corporation backing it.

Fact still remains, a huge majority of the servers that exist in the back-end are unix/linux based. Hell, OSX is a pretty front end for a variation of Darwin.

Not quite sure why you had to get insulting and bust out the name-calling in a rather civil discussion. Even though the subject has been beaten to death, so have lots of other subjects here.

Again - it was an expression of frustration moreso than insulting and name-calling - No names were mentioned and I insulted no-one in particular.

This is moreso just one that hits home for me because the majority of the disagreement comes from a lack of understanding... Though that's usually true of any debate isn't it?

No harm intended, just wanted to toss in my 2c like everyone else :)

PinkFloydDudi

10-01-2009, 12:10 PM

Because everything in commercials are accurate...

Okay, that's fair - the general population automatically goes to the Mac-vs-PC thing right away, when we're really talking about the same thing.

If everyone understands what is meant by the term PC in reference to the "Mac vs PC" debate, then there is no issue.

It was an expression of my opinion and wasn't directed to any 1 individual specifically - if you took offense to it - my apologies. It's more, to me, an expression of frustration over the lack of knowledge about the topic and the people who partake in these debates without relevant information. (again, not meant to be directed to anyone here in the forum, or even in general)

In an audio (and fan) forum, you need to look at it from the users side. Join me in some computer forums and you will see people debating the details you refer to.

Sure, I have no problem with that, but this whole debate came out of nowhere from the middle of this thread. It's not about discussing the negatives and positives - I think it SHOULD be more about clarification about misunderstandings between the systems. Which isn't happening nor do I think is going to happen.
Its why I try and stay out of most of these, because people aren't usually experienced computer users (when compared to us IT people!). But if you let the things slide, knowing what they mean in general, its still a good conversation.
And the conversation comes up EVERYWHERE anytime someone asks "what computer should I get".

What you're talking about isn't their programmers - it's their marketing department. It's a generalized term for something that's inaccurate and when you're talking tech (not marketing) there should be a differentiation in there.
Both of their marketing departments agree on calling Windows a "PC". They dictate what we call things. If Microsoft suddenly decided to call the new windows: "Windows God mode"...well thats what we'd call it!

About linux sucking from a general user standpoint couldn't be further from the truth. The reason "no-one" uses it is because it's not made by a huge company. It has no commercial advertising or multi-million dollar corporation backing it.
Most people know what Linux is...or at least know of it. If it was that appealing, people would be switching to it. Who wouldn't want something for free compared to something they have to pay for?

And linux most definitely has multi-million dollar companies behind it. (Redhat for one).

Fact still remains, a huge majority of the servers that exist in the back-end are unix/linux based. Hell, OSX is a pretty front end for a variation of Darwin.
There is a lot more setup and adjustments to be made in linux as well.

Again - it was an expression of frustration moreso than insulting and name-calling - No names were mentioned and I insulted no-one in particular.

This is moreso just one that hits home for me because the majority of the disagreement comes from a lack of understanding... Though that's usually true of any debate isn't it?

No harm intended, just wanted to toss in my 2c like everyone else :)

Fair enough! And you are completely right regarding where the debate comes from.

Like I said, people ugraded from a 5 year old PC to a mac and said "WOW this is way better".

Plus as an IT guy who likes audio too...its a fun topic! I don't know a ton regarding the front-end of OSX, but enough regarding the hardware involved to know that you are right in saying that both are pretty much equally good!

Cheers!

Enigma™

10-01-2009, 12:19 PM

If everyone understands what is meant by the term PC in reference to the "Mac vs PC" debate, then there is no issue.

In an audio (and fan) forum, you need to look at it from the users side. Join me in some computer forums and you will see people debating the details you refer to.

Good point - I guess I've been working with computers way too long to just assume there is a certain level of expected knowledge... Thanks for reminding me that not everyone is a computer nerd like me LOL

Most people know what Linux is...or at least know of it. If it was that appealing, people would be switching to it. Who wouldn't want something for free compared to something they have to pay for?

And linux most definitely has multi-million dollar companies behind it. (Redhat for one).

I have to somewhat agree - I know Redhat is a multi-million dollar company, but when's the last time you've seen them actually run an ad on TV or in the newspaper.

It's almost like the product sells itself.

What WOULD be cool though, is to see ads for Ubuntu or Gentoo, or even something like Suse or Debian. They're all pretty easy to install and use... and 99% of things work out of the box. It's just installing games that people shy away from it... Most games work for Windows... Occasionally ported to OSX, and hardly ever in Linux unless you're running Wine which doesn't always work.

Like I said, people upgraded from a 5 year old PC to a mac and said "WOW this is way better".

Now that is something I really haven't considered... I had a good friend of mine do exactly this and he loves his Mac... Funny how that works huh?

TheMayhem

10-01-2009, 12:35 PM

I'm going to end the debate right here about this whole Mac -vs- PC garbage.

First mistake: It's not "Mac Vs PC"

Dumbasses - PC stands for Personal Computer. Macintosh makes Personal Computers.

you know, just as a heads up, you're about ten posts too late with this one http://www.jordanrudess.com/forum/showpost.php?p=101923&postcount=13 :wink:

I have to somewhat agree - I know Redhat is a multi-million dollar company, but when's the last time you've seen them actually run an ad on TV or in the newspaper.

It's almost like the product sells itself.

What WOULD be cool though, is to see ads for Ubuntu or Gentoo, or even something like Suse or Debian. They're all pretty easy to install and use... and 99% of things work out of the box. It's just installing games that people shy away from it... Most games work for Windows... Occasionally ported to OSX, and hardly ever in Linux unless you're running Wine which doesn't always work.

i'm pretty sure the target audience for redhat isn't the average consumer :biggrin: i mean, do you see cray showing ad's on tv for the "cray PCx4"? ofcourse you don't.

*idea* i'm sure there's a few of you here who are good with visual arts, why don't we put some effort into giving back to the linux community and make some ad's for ubuntu, gentoo, or debian? *idea*

whitelightening

10-01-2009, 12:46 PM

Enigma™

10-01-2009, 12:51 PM

you know, just as a heads up, you're about ten posts too late with this one http://www.jordanrudess.com/forum/showpost.php?p=101923&postcount=13 :wink:

i'm pretty sure the target audience for redhat isn't the average consumer :biggrin: i mean, do you see cray showing ad's on tv for the "cray PCx4"? ofcourse you don't.

*idea* i'm sure there's a few of you here who are good with visual arts, why don't we put some effort into giving back to the linux community and make some ad's for ubuntu, gentoo, or debian? *idea*

Yeah, I don't sit on the forum all day long, so I just started to chime in lol

Actually, you're right - it makes sense that Redhat wouldn't have a commercial on TV, but that also explains why Linux isn't a household OS either for the most part.

I still think if they made games/added support for it, it would be more popular. Still has work to be done to be mainstream but I love it :-)

TheMayhem

10-01-2009, 03:57 PM

I only wanted to know if a Macbook Pro would be good enough for my needs/desires at this point. I do appreciate the knowledge about Windows 7 that I was unaware of, and I will take it into consideration. In no way did I mean to offend anyone or cause others to write offensive responses. I never intended for this thread to turn into what it has. So, for that, I apologize.

For those with suggestions based on a Windows 7 system, are you saying I should build a computer or purchase a computer? In either case, where would you suggest I start looking?

well, you can build a fairly powerful win7 desktop for reasonably cheap, and then you can get a decent laptop for reasonably cheap too (the two can be had for less than a mbp)

if you're in the US, newegg is where i'd go for parts. if you're not sure what kind of parts to get here's some decent guidelines to follow:

intel quad core processor
at least 4 gb of ram
2 7200 rpm sata drives
nvidia 9600gt video card (worth the small quantity of extra dough)
antec case
corsair PSU
and for mobo asus or msi.

if you're not hell bent on having the "latest and greatest", you can save alot of dough by going with slightly older hardware (the stuff that was new a year ago)

Yeah, I don't sit on the forum all day long, so I just started to chime in lol

Actually, you're right - it makes sense that Redhat wouldn't have a commercial on TV, but that also explains why Linux isn't a household OS either for the most part.

I still think if they made games/added support for it, it would be more popular. Still has work to be done to be mainstream but I love it :-)

you could have at least read the thread before posting, n00b :biggrin::tongue::wink:

ubuntu is killer, and there's a moderate amount of gaming support for it compared to what there used to be. it's picking up some, and i'm glad.

sparkey

10-01-2009, 05:09 PM

the joys of a 'osx' and 'windows' war

good reading =P

well it depends
i think the general point being made is a custom build pc assumes
you know how to build a pc and have time
or know someone to to do it for you

i think the other point is

Digital Performer 7...your software of choice, i believe that only runs on macs?
and considering lighting also wanted a laptop,

It comes down to

are you willing to change to windows 7, and learn say pro tools or sonar cubase ect?
and are you willing to give up portability?
or as a alternative, run a cracked verson of mac onto the pc you build, (sounds dicey?)

buying a laptop, while its cheaper, id rather a macbook pro over a dell/hp ect made laptop

keep in mind, building up your own pc from scatch can save you considering the massive cost of a mac tower, if you are good, at least a 1000,

and as was said somewhere way back
that 1000 dollars can get you mics interfaces DI boxes leads, acoustics for the walls, a mackie big knob...whatever can improve ...or a couple of 19inch screens, there pretty cheap and dam useful