Mac Book or Mac Book Pro w/VSTs?

[Gustavo]

Well the big advantage over windows is that macs are a lot more reliable and less crash-y. Also Macs are more user friendly and better in OS than windows. BUT getting windows, you would get a lot of compability, though if u can get xp, id recommend it better, since for me vista is just an apple`d xp that takes up more ram and space. Also the mac book should be enough, unless you run a lot of prorams at once.
So for live use, I would say without hesitating Mac for its reliabilityand performance. And for a studio... thats harder since you could get a powerfull windows desktop and load it with alll sorts of stuff, Thats where i would say a windows might be head to head with a mac... well almost.

G

[MarkDTMMZ]

Hey guys,

I've used hardware my whole career, but recently have been considering bringing soft synths into my live rig
I wanted some opinions on whether I need to go full tilt and get the mac book pro, or if that's unecessary.

Some people have told me that musicians really only need the macbook for running these programs, though others have told me that the pro will give more options/power and better bang for my buck in the long.

I would appreciate any feedback or suggestions from people who use soft synths.

Thanks,
Mark

Mile Marker Zero
www.mmzband.com
myspace.com/mmz

[SerFox]

Windows Vista laptop.

I use that, with a lot of softsynth stuff, and find the fact more hardware is compatible with it,a nd more software too, that it's usually a better idea to go with WIndows.

And I'm not a fan of macs. At all.

[Luca_Capozzi]

I'm not a Mac fan too... in fact I only own two uning them extensively for my musical works :D

Altough a Macbook Pro gives better perfomance, indeed, a Macbook can also be good enough to run whatever you want. The only limitation is to 4GB of max RAM on latest models (3rd generation, with Leopard onboard).

Cheers,
Luca

p.s.:
Vista, the most un-user friendly OS ever made :) I will made a full upgrade, on more then 20 PCs in my company, only when XP can't be found anymore.

[SerFox]

un user friendly? Um... in what sense? Works wonders for me and my boyfriend and we do different things and both work fantastically?

[MarkDTMMZ]

Thanks for the tips. I definatly will be running several vst's at once (probably Ivory, B4, Symphonic Inst, etc) So maybe the pro will be the safe bet, and may be better for me in the long run.
I'm surprised to hear that many programs may not be compatible. I'll have to look more into that...

Mark
Mile Marker Zero
www.mmzband.com
myspace.com/mmz

[stealth]

You might reconsider the Mac platform for live use, simply because I don't believe there's a Mac live vst host that rivals Forte. You could put together a relatively cheap powerhouse PC that's rock solid for live purposes - Forte gives you incredible stability and flexibility in live situations. I don't think I'd ever consider using VST's live without it.

[Grey Loki]

un user friendly? Um... in what sense? Works wonders for me and my boyfriend and we do different things and both work fantastically?

In the sense that if you want to do anything more advanced/complex than surfing the internet or reading your emails, you're asked 'are you sure?' continuously, subjected to stupidly lengthy procedures and click-routes for the simplest of tasks, not to mention that the entire system layout has changed from what worked (ie, 95, 98, 2000 (more or less), and XP) into something that requires everyone to re-learn how to do practically everything, for no good reason.

Don't even get me started on trying to set up networks - I spent three hours trying to work out why a vista laptop wouldn't work in an internet cafe I was setting up, to find out later on that it was blocking DHCP.

Silently.

[jenius_92000]

what if u got a windows pc and got a version of mac patched for intel?

[rock_ya]

^^Umm, that would be illegal...

[Grey Loki]

There are several guides available for creating a 'hackintosh', as they're called, but they aren't as stable as a proper apple-built Mac - though they are substantially cheaper.

rock_ya - is there something in the Mac EULA that forbids you from installing the OS onto a non-apple-created piece of hardware? I didn't know that - I always thought that the license was purely about the software and your license of it, no matter where it was installed.

[rock_ya]

Yeah, the OS is bound to be used with Apple hardware only - don't have the exact quote but I'm totally sure that is the case as I had looked into that solution before (when hackintosh were making their first steps with another name and admin, and I can even remember the name of the first hacker, Maxxuss, that is) :wink: .

[rex18]

I've read a review in a computer magazine recently, they tested MB vs MBP for their performance. The result is MBP still give the best performance but MB is reasonably close enough to compete MBP. The difference is not significant.

That's why I bought MB but upgraded to 2Gb RAM and 160Gb HDD. At least I can save around $600. The other reason I chose MB is because I will use it mostly for audio production (running Logic or Reason) instead for video editing. So unless you want to use it for video editing (Final Cut), you should go for MBP.