Mac v PC for music production. Throw down the gauntlet.... and please leave it there!

frobisher · 21-03-2009 03:40PM #1

The Mac v PC issue keeps rearing its ugly head time and time again. There's no point in coming down hard on someone for asking the question if they're a noob. It is a valid question after all. But it does all get a bit tired for those of us who are here everyday. So I'm going to try and offer a starting point with a balanced overview over some of the relevant points and ye can all respond, tear it to shreds and add your own tuppence worth below and when the question comes up we can point people to this thread.

Firstly, always remember folk are biased. Like farts, people think that THEIR favourite way of working smells better than everyone elses. Always remember this!
So before any of you post, declare your allegiance (if any)! I will announce myself as someone who has used PC' for years, the odd mac in studios and has recently gone to mac full time.

History.... I've heard many variations on why macs are traditionally perceived as being better for music and also film/design. The most convincing I've heard is that back when these tasks were quite difficult for a computer to handle the software and hardware designers needed as much info about what computer their product would be used on as possible. Macs are made by one company, Apple, and therefore designers could know exactly what they had to work with. PC's on the other hand were made to a variety of standards by an array of different companies so one PC could be incredibly different to another. Those of us old enough will remember approved lists of PC components issued by soundcard makers and when certain graphics cards in your PC would crash your audio program!

Raw power..... I'm not an IT benchmark tester but I can guess that the differences in processing power between modern macs and PC's is probably not that great. Many both have intel chips with similar speeds at this stage. Perhaps someone with any knowledge in this area could chime in? In bancjmakr testing which is faster?

Budget.... Macs are generally more expensive than PC's for similar spec'ed units.

Tweaking... You need to tweak a PC to get it to be a lean mean audio machine. Macs are ready to go out of the box. This may make a difference to you, it doesn't to me.

Hardware/software issues .... Certain pieces of kit and software are either solely made or more suitable for certain platforms. I personally think that this, and compatibility with collaborators, should be the first step you take in what you choose above everything else.

My own personal conclusion is that it's important not to be sucked in by pro this or anti that. Computers are inherently boring pieces of plastic and metal that in the hands/ears of musicians can be used to make great (or awful!) music and it's these hands and ears that matter more than anything else. Buy a powerful enough machine from either platform with the right software and hardware and your music shouldn't be limited by your kit.

Please add and enlighten.....

studiorat · 21-03-2009 03:52PM

Tape machine and a mixing desk, period!

frobisher · 21-03-2009 03:55PM

studiorat wrote: »

Tape machine and a mixing desk, period!

What motherboard are you using with that though and is it glitch free now on OS X?

Neurojazz · 21-03-2009 04:47PM

PC user here, would love Macs in the house, but they want to charge the earth

- worked with Macs, don't have issues about them, would love a mac book air and SSD drive etc...

The irony is, i've made more money with a 1000 quid keyboard and my highest selling mp3 was made with *Reason* on an crappy bottom of the range IBM RE-50.

My only gripe with Macs are the knee jerk reaction of 'buy a mac' - when a PC *can* do the job, otherwise if pockets deep then go buy a Mac (even though they still get kernel panics)

I remember re-visiting this whole PC/Mac thing at college - and one thing that Apple like to do is 'hide' their little flaws and quirks while portraying this 'perfect'/'out the box' image, one thing i remember the most is that they had to patch little flaws with simple things in their OS on the quiet to try and keep this image (which i'm sure is clever marketing)

The digidesign pricing seems to be off world also.

With PC, it's pretty cheap to interchange parts also. A hobbyists dream.

I'm not pro/anti either camp - just frugal.

woodsdenis · 21-03-2009 04:50PM

Here is where i stand on this one. I have used a Mac for 20 years and would never consider using a PC for anything, thats my choice and this is why.

1. It is absolutely correct that a well specified PC that is correctly set up
will work fine for music. The point is that this Music PC is not the Dell machine you buy for € 500 . The problem is, as it always has been, that the hardware used to make a PC ( Motherboards, RAM,Video cards etc ) varies from each manufacturer.

This makes the testing of pro software virtually impossible as there are so many different possible configurations. This is an indisputable fact. This is why there are so many specialist companies who put together music PCs with the hopefully correct components.

The Mac advantage has always been that it makes its own hardware and OS. Mac hardware is virtually identical in each model and therefore makes it easy to test and develop for. When you consider the cost difference between the custom music PC and the equivalent Mac it is not huge.

2. Operating systems.
No matter what your opinion is of Microsoft or Apple is the fact is that Vista is a disaster for music software, and by all accounts most everything else, even Microsoft have admitted to its shortfalls and are working like crazy on Windows 7. The only guaranteed Windows OS is XP which was launched in May 2001 !!!!. Snow Leopard for Mac will be released this year will be the first proper 64 bit OS out there. This is important because, it will hugely change music software, in that RAM limitations for software will no longer be an issue. This really affects Virtual samplers and soft-synths.

All of this being said , music is the most important thing wether you use a PC or a Mac make your own choice

Denis

frobisher · 21-03-2009 05:01PM

woodsdenis wrote: »

1. It is absolutely correct that a well specified PC that is correctly set up
will work fine for music. The point is that this Music PC is not the Dell machine you buy for € 500 . The problem is, as it always has been, that the hardware used to make a PC ( Motherboards, RAM,Video cards etc ) varies from each manufacturer.

My Dell PC for that price range gave me rock solid performance with a very high track count for several years. I know many others who have had similar experiences so this is far from always true.

BuddhaJoe · 21-03-2009 05:26PM

I own a PC and a similarly spec'd Intel based Mac. Both are fantastically stable systems and performance wise theres nothing really between them.

However if I was forced to pick between them I would pick the PC. Reasons being:

My Mac cost nearly 3x as much as the Audio PC I built.
My Mac doesnt support all the plugins I use.
My Mac sometimes stutters with large plugins like Superior 2.0, my PC doesnt.

In saying this I do adore my Mac. It's a joy to use and for graphic design projects I tend to always use it. I absolutely love the screens that come with them.

woodsdenis · 21-03-2009 05:39PM

frobisher wrote: »

My Dell PC for that price range gave me rock solid performance with a very high track count for several years. I know many others who have had similar experiences so this is far from always true.

frobisher

I am not debating this at all. I am sure there are many stock PCs out there that will give you what you want. If it suits your needs go for it.

My direct experience is with Pro tools HD perhaps I should have specified that at the start.

http://www.digidesign.com/index.cfm?navid=54&itemid=25672

This is what you have to go through to get PT HD running on Windows.
In percentage terms there are very few people running PT on Windows.
If you go by postings on the DUC its about 90/10 in favour of MAC.

Protools isn't the only software for recording music I hear you cry, and you would be right. However wether we like it or not it is the standard for professional music recording/production, and the thread is titled Mac vs PC for music production. It is also one of the few DAWs that support both Mac and PC so its a good one for comparison between the 2 hardware platforms, and the bottom line is that 90% of Protools users use Macs.

I am sure that Sonar, Reaper and all the other PC DAWs all work fine but it is impossible to do a PC v Mac thread if this software is only coded for one
platform.

All current MAC pros use virtually the same hardware.I think there are 3 models. I would guarantee there are many more Dell models for sale now all with
different hardware specs.
That doesn't make a Dell a bad computer, it just makes it difficult to code software for all models.

If you want to do a PC v Mac thing you have to pick one piece of software
that runs on both, no?

If you want to do a Sonar v Logic v Reaper v Protools then thats a different thread

Denis

Neurojazz · 21-03-2009 06:23PM

erm... The software argument.

I've worked in many music shops and the general 'accepted by the music industry' is because they pay and finance huge amounts of advertising through it.

A bit like the old Future Music magazines would harp on about some kit more than others is because it constituted the greater portion of their revenue - not because it was better or more stable.

Some mags provide honest opinions, but behind a lot of it is politics - very rarely does a clear perspective on a situation ever occur.

And once again, the Mac camp 'see this proof, we are better - endorsed by the industry' - a load of codswallop, it's the PEOPLE WHO BUY THE MUSIC who endorse the equipment with their purchases of your material.

Easy life = Mac - i agree for the compatibility - any Mac user can go buy me a Mac air (the SSD one please) - as you have way too much cash

Stability on a PC isn't a big issue once you know what's actually happening in front of you - really the geeks option.

PaulBrewer · 21-03-2009 06:38PM

Neurojazz wrote: »

erm... The software argument.

I've worked in many music shops and the general 'accepted by the music industry' is because they pay and finance huge amounts of advertising through it.

A bit like the old Future Music magazines would harp on about some kit more than others is because it constituted the greater portion of their revenue - not because it was better or more stable.

Some mags provide honest opinions, but behind a lot of it is politics - very rarely does a clear perspective on a situation ever occur.

And once again, the Mac camp 'see this proof, we are better - endorsed by the industry' - a load of codswallop, it's the PEOPLE WHO BUY THE MUSIC who endorse the equipment with their purchases of your material.

Easy life = Mac - i agree for the compatibility - any Mac user can go buy me a Mac air (the SSD one please) - as you have way too much cash

Stability on a PC isn't a big issue once you know what's actually happening in front of you - really the geeks option.

I think most ProTools HD users, the professionals, wouldn't refer to magazines for advice primarily but their peers.

Neurojazz · 21-03-2009 06:46PM

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I think most ProTools HD users, the professionals, wouldn't refer to magazines for advice primarily but their peers.

And throughout all our lives has been the marketing and product placement!

Look at what get installed in schools - lots of free/cheap gear that manufacturers want the pupils to see so that they get into the brands.

So, not just mags - but everywhere.

That's just a point of view, obviously some people are impermeable to outside influences and able to make clear decisions based on all the facts.

woodsdenis · 21-03-2009 07:29PM

Neurojazz wrote: »

erm... The software argument.

I've worked in many music shops and the general 'accepted by the music industry' is because they pay and finance huge amounts of advertising through it.

Easy life = Mac - i agree for the compatibility - any Mac user can go buy me a Mac air (the SSD one please) - as you have way too much cash

Stability on a PC isn't a big issue once you know what's actually happening in front of you - really the geeks option.

erm the thread is about hardware primarily. I chose the software because it is compatible with both platforms.
I accept the point that in general mass advertising a product will make people accept it as a standard but to use it to describe PT HD is beyond ridiculous . I dont think all the major studios in the world chose to spend 20k
plus just because it was advertised in Future Music or anywhere else.

As you say Easy life=Mac. I am not saying PCs are unstable but no one would argue that there is a lot more to go wrong on a PC. The implication in your last sentence is that you need to be more computer literate or a geek to use a PC, fair enough I will take the easy life.

Denis

Neurojazz · 21-03-2009 07:58PM

Yeah, i'd agree about the upper end of things - the very upper end where niche gear can charge for that sort of set up - Macs everytime.

I'm well aware of the days when Macs were in every serious music/graphic businesses and PCs were a lump of poo - it's a pity there's a horrific premium for that stability!

What would be really useful is some real technical on the low level operation of the machine, but at the end of the day Macs have their niches and PCs have theirs....

One feature i do love about Macs is walking into a house that has one. All your bluetooth/wireless devices suddenly pop into action and merge seamlessly with the mac - with PCs, well, erm, crap.

Please go buy me a Mac out of pity ;P - then i can have a nice social laptop that i don't need to wear fireproof trousers to sit down with - not for music though - my PC will see me through the next year or two before i fill the house with mac crap.

henessjon · 21-03-2009 08:52PM

me = mac man

but I believe that a pc is very viable using xp.

The cost of pc is very favourable. just check your chosen application is compatible.

Mac why are they leaving behind old ppc dont understand that.... (in near future mac will only be supporting intel duo core )

i reckon in future you might be able to run osx on pc

its just money making racket you know making past models obselete

are well the recession is here we will be back in caves once the ozone kicks in

frobisher · 21-03-2009 10:39PM

woodsdenis wrote: »

frobisher

I am not debating this at all. I am sure there are many stock PCs out there that will give you what you want. If it suits your needs go for it.

My direct experience is with Pro tools HD perhaps I should have specified that at the start.

http://www.digidesign.com/index.cfm?navid=54&itemid=25672

This is what you have to go through to get PT HD running on Windows.
In percentage terms there are very few people running PT on Windows.
If you go by postings on the DUC its about 90/10 in favour of MAC.

Protools isn't the only software for recording music I hear you cry, and you would be right. However wether we like it or not it is the standard for professional music recording/production, and the thread is titled Mac vs PC for music production. It is also one of the few DAWs that support both Mac and PC so its a good one for comparison between the 2 hardware platforms, and the bottom line is that 90% of Protools users use Macs.

I am sure that Sonar, Reaper and all the other PC DAWs all work fine but it is impossible to do a PC v Mac thread if this software is only coded for one
platform.

All current MAC pros use virtually the same hardware.I think there are 3 models. I would guarantee there are many more Dell models for sale now all with
different hardware specs.
That doesn't make a Dell a bad computer, it just makes it difficult to code software for all models.

And your own experiences are what you should of course share with us. But ya gotta see the big picture too. Dells, and other cheap PC's, will make music very well. They are the only needs we're discussing!

[/QUOTE]If you want to do a PC v Mac thing you have to pick one piece of software
that runs on both, no?

If you want to do a Sonar v Logic v Reaper v Protools then thats a different thread

Denis[/QUOTE]

I couldn't disagree more. We're not talking about the specifics of certain apps within the platform. We're addressing the overall issues of the benefits, or not, of one platform over another. Specifics deserve their own thread. This isn't it.

Helix · 21-03-2009 10:47PM

henessjon wrote: »

i reckon in future you might be able to run osx on pc

you already can

woodsdenis · 22-03-2009 01:07AM

frobisher wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more. We're not talking about the specifics of certain apps within the platform. We're addressing the overall issues of the benefits, or not, of one platform over another. Specifics deserve their own thread. This isn't it.

frobisher

I was using Pro tools to illustrate a point about how the same software runs on a Mac or a PC. Thats it!!!! It seems a valid way of comparing/addressing the overall issues of the benefits, or not, of one platform over another.

If you can run 100 audio tracks and 100 VI on Sonar on a Dell computer.
Great !!! That is not addressing the overall issues of the benefits, or not, of one platform over another as it only runs on a PC
You cant compare that on a Mac because Sonar doesn't run on it. You could compare it to Logic which does, but then you are comparing software not hardware.

There is no question that people make great music on every kind of computer imaginable, I never said they didn't. To be frank I don't care, it doesn't matter. In the world that I work in reliability is the key and that is why I have the system I have. If your demands are different and your setup suits your needs I am not going to argue the point, how or why should I.

I read the title of the thread as Mac v PC for music production, if I made a mistake I apologize.

Denis

dav nagle · 22-03-2009 02:07AM

My experience:

Macs Leopard/Tiger = stable, reliable

Pc Vista/xp = unstable, unreliable

What more is there to say?

Seriously, Microsauce are unable to release a game console that is fool proof let alone a music making machine, it' a no brainer. If you want an untstable fruit machine then go Microsauce.

The machine is not the issue it is the operating system.

Leopard = as stable as a mahagony gas pipe in an old new york tavern
XP/VISTA = as unstable as 'epilepsy'

seannash · 22-03-2009 02:26AM

no real maintainance with a mac.no real chance of viruses.no need to buy norton anti virus.can run logic which is ****ing fantastic:D
music aside just not having to uploads disks for printers, cameras etc.
they have the best looking units(not a huge factor but a factor none the less).
obviously im a happy mac user.was a happy pc user before i switched.i cant fecking stand xp now.macs os is far far superior.

bedbugs · 22-03-2009 02:41AM

The advantage Macs have as I see it is uniformity -they're made by Apple and no-one else. The same cannot be said for PCs. Not only do builds vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, they also vary from model to model, so a lot can go wrong.

However, if you're smart (and want to go down the PC route) you'll ensure you have the correct components installed. If you do, then your experience WILL be as good, if not better, than a mac.

I got my PC built at the exact same time as 2 of my friends bought Macs (1, a macbook pro and one a mac pro). In the 18 months, my PC has crashed zero times and their's have crashed 2 and 3 times respectively. Macs ain't what they used to be. Having said that, I think OSX is a wonderful OS, so if you get a mac that's stable, great.

NOW... this stuff about Macs being "industry standard" I really hate that phrase. What industry do people mean when they say it? Maybe someone should tell Hans Zimmer and his bunch of composers that by using PCs, they're not being very standard about things. Likewise, all the professionals using Pyramix and Sadie -no protools to be seen -or Macs for that matter.

If the industry you're talking about is flailing rock studios, then yep, I guess it is pretty standard.

ball ox · 22-03-2009 11:47AM

Someone above said mac = easy life. I can't think of a better reason to buy one so. Obviously you, as an engineer/producer want the tools thatare most convenient in assisting you to do your job. Why the he'll would you not choose the one that makes your job easier?! If mac bright their prices down to sane levels I would be very interested in seeing how many studios would continue running windows. Everytime this argument crops up you get plenty of people saying " pc's are better but I'll take a mac if you buy me one" you never hear the opposite though.

woodsdenis · 22-03-2009 03:01PM

bedbugs wrote: »

NOW... this stuff about Macs being "industry standard" I really hate that phrase. What industry do people mean when they say it? Maybe someone should tell Hans Zimmer and his bunch of composers that by using PCs, they're not being very standard about things. Likewise, all the professionals using Pyramix and Sadie -no protools to be seen -or Macs for that matter.

If the industry you're talking about is flailing rock studios, then yep, I guess it is pretty standard.

Industry standard means the most used in any particular field wether you use it or agree. Protools on a Mac is the industry standard whatever you might say in the same way that SSL and Studer tape machines were in the old days. This doesn't make them the best or the worst, it is simply a fact.

If you count all of the professional studios I have been in all over the world who use the industry standard as flailing rock studios then you need to do a bit more research before making ridiculous statements like that.

Nobody here is arguing that many people use PCs for professional work.
As you brought Hans Zimmer I will answer that as I have been in the LA studio and have met him personally while in Air studios while recording. You are right he uses very customized PC to compose with on Cubase.Also the other composers you allude to there like Trevor Rabin and Jeff Rona don"t use them.
But guess what his/their scores are mixed on ? Protools on a Mac is the answer. Why.
Because in LA it is the industry standard and in LA where constant revision of mixes between Post and Composer is the norm, it just wouldn't work unless every body was on the same system. Fact.

Have a guess what was used to record the score in Air Lindhurst. Protools
on a Mac. Why? Because no professional engineer I have ever met would risk doing it on anything else .Fact.

dav nagle made the best point so far, in that these days it has as much to do with the OS than anything else.

It is a really silly argument to make, by pointing out people who use different systems and saying x uses this or that, that is their prerogative.
Who cares? In the real world where pros make money, wether we like it or not we have to conform to the standard. I could only guess the reaction I would get if I submitted a film score on Cubase to a dubbing stage !!!

Denis

Seziertisch · 22-03-2009 03:07PM

One of the reasons PCs get a bad rep is that a lot of times people take one that is marketed to non-specific home users (i.e. something which is fine for doing a bit of MS Office and a bit of surfing and whatever) and put it to work as a multimedia machine.

I have had 2 PCs, one a top of the range Dell from about 6 or 7 years ago which had the best of everything in it, and the other a Red Submarine Audio PC. Both have worked without a problem.

In terms of a Mac being unproblematic, I would say that if someone gets a custom audio PC they can expect a similarly positive experience.

PaulBrewer · 22-03-2009 06:35PM

woodsdenis wrote: »

Industry standard means the most used in any particular field wether you use it or agree. Protools on a Mac is the industry standard whatever you might say in the same way that SSL and Studer tape machines were in the old days. This doesn't make them the best or the worst, it is simply a fact.

If you count all of the professional studios I have been in all over the world who use the industry standard as flailing rock studios then you need to do a bit more research before making ridiculous statements like that.

Nobody here is arguing that many people use PCs for professional work.
As you brought Hans Zimmer I will answer that as I have been in the LA studio and have met him personally while in Air studios while recording. You are right he uses very customized PC to compose with on Cubase.Also the other composers you allude to there like Trevor Rabin and Jeff Rona don"t use them.
But guess what his/their scores are mixed on ? Protools on a Mac is the answer. Why.
Because in LA it is the industry standard and in LA where constant revision of mixes between Post and Composer is the norm, it just wouldn't work unless every body was on the same system. Fact.

Have a guess what was used to record the score in Air Lindhurst. Protools
on a Mac. Why? Because no professional engineer I have ever met would risk doing it on anything else .Fact.

dav nagle made the best point so far, in that these days it has as much to do with the OS than anything else.

It is a really silly argument to make, by pointing out people who use different systems and saying x uses this or that, that is their prerogative.
Who cares? In the real world where pros make money, wether we like it or not we have to conform to the standard. I could only guess the reaction I would get if I submitted a film score on Cubase to a dubbing stage !!!

Denis

I think Denis' points are correct. No one individual decides what the Industry standard is, the Industry does.

I do agree that it's a combination of merit, marketing and luck that allows a product to reach that peak.

I'd guess the designers of SM57s didn't think their work would become 'Industry Standard' or the lad who designed the NS10s.

I seem to recall a post from Digidesign somewhere saying that after a few months they had 10,000 Pro Tools 8 downloads as an indication of the volume of PT users.

PaulBrewer · 22-03-2009 06:44PM

Seziertisch wrote: »

One of the reasons PCs get a bad rep is that a lot of times people take one that is marketed to non-specific home users (i.e. something which is fine for doing a bit of MS Office and a bit of surfing and whatever) and put it to work as a multimedia machine.

That point, again, is reiterating the idea that a Mac is a 'standard' against which software can be developed whereas a PC is a 'variable' and therefore much more difficult to predict performance.

Also it's clear Apple are much more Music oriented than Microsoft etc - their Garagband, Logic software suggests that as well as their tightening relationship with Apogee.

bedbugs · 22-03-2009 07:16PM

woodsdenis wrote: »

Industry standard means the most used in any particular field wether you use it or agree. Protools on a Mac is the industry standard whatever you might say in the same way that SSL and Studer tape machines were in the old days. This doesn't make them the best or the worst, it is simply a fact.

If you count all of the professional studios I have been in all over the world who use the industry standard as flailing rock studios then you need to do a bit more research before making ridiculous statements like that.

Nobody here is arguing that many people use PCs for professional work.
As you brought Hans Zimmer I will answer that as I have been in the LA studio and have met him personally while in Air studios while recording. You are right he uses very customized PC to compose with on Cubase.Also the other composers you allude to there like Trevor Rabin and Jeff Rona don"t use them.
But guess what his/their scores are mixed on ? Protools on a Mac is the answer. Why.
Because in LA it is the industry standard and in LA where constant revision of mixes between Post and Composer is the norm, it just wouldn't work unless every body was on the same system. Fact.

Have a guess what was used to record the score in Air Lindhurst. Protools
on a Mac. Why? Because no professional engineer I have ever met would risk doing it on anything else .Fact.

dav nagle made the best point so far, in that these days it has as much to do with the OS than anything else.

It is a really silly argument to make, by pointing out people who use different systems and saying x uses this or that, that is their prerogative.
Who cares? In the real world where pros make money, wether we like it or not we have to conform to the standard. I could only guess the reaction I would get if I submitted a film score on Cubase to a dubbing stage !!!

Denis

Denis, my point was that there are numerous industries that use recording facilities, be it music for theatre, foley, filmscore, classical, rock etc.. Each area has their own standards. I was simply pointing out that to say mac and protools is standard across all of these, is ridiculous.

I wrote, recorded and mixed a feature film score, which premièred in this years JDIFF and was very well received. It was all done on a PC running Cubase. It did me very well, thank you very much.

And the money I earned wasn't fake. I earn a living from composing music. THAT's real enough for me.

Neurojazz · 22-03-2009 07:25PM

woodsdenis wrote: »

Have a guess what was used to record the score in Air Lindhurst. Protools
on a Mac. Why? Because no professional engineer I have ever met would risk doing it on anything else .Fact.

Denis

Define professional - someone that gets paid?, receives large royalty checks?, get successful? - please stop making 'this is the way it is' - when a wise man knows that there are many more perspectives than your own.

I personally have only lost 2 pieces of music in 15 years. 1 to an atari st and one to a corrupt Reason file - which was fairly easy to rollback due to incremental saving.

I've had horrific raid errors and even smoke coming out of machines, but always been able to recover data.

Even if the drives heads were to seize up i'd know how to rescue it.

PC = Geek, Technicians, Hobbyist - you create the machine to one specific task.

I personally don't have ISSUES about either camp, I'd buy macs purely so i didn't have to maintain the 'home computer' thing and have that easy life.... who knows.... i'd probably even move to a power mac once i'd decided to spend my next lot of cash to upgrade the whole thing - but probably employ someone to operate the mac to avoid the learning curve

condra · 22-03-2009 07:42PM

"Industry standard" doesn't mean much these days, especially not to the average project studio owner.

Plenty of professionals use Windows to record with, and there's no reason why someone couldn't get professional results with Windows.

I started with Windows about ten years ago, and nowadays I use both Mac and Windows for different things, but if I could do those Windowsy things in OSX, I surely would. When I first made the switch, it took me about a week to realise it was something I should have done years before.

I'm not an Apple fanboy, but I love OSX and I think Apple do some things very well. The extra cost for a mac is worth it for the operating system in my opinion.

OSX is transparent, elegant and refined. Windows will constantly get in the way of your workflow.
Going back to using Windows when you're used to OSX, is like cycling from tarmac onto a rugby pitch. That's just the way it is.

I always have to laugh when PC fanboys say "OSX is for stupid people", in DEFENCE of Windows! Its ease of use is one of OSX's greatest strenghts.

woodsdenis · 22-03-2009 09:19PM

Neurojazz wrote: »

Define professional - someone that gets paid?, receives large royalty checks?, get successful? - please stop making 'this is the way it is' - when a wise man knows that there are many more perspectives than your own.

I absolutely agree its only my perspective and take it for what its worth or not.Its the only one I have

The definition of professional in this context is some one with enough experience and talent to do the job properly and in this case they certainly got paid, they are successful and I dont know about a royalty cheque:rolleyes:

bedbugs wrote: »

I wrote, recorded and mixed a feature film score, which premièred in this years JDIFF and was very well received. It was all done on a PC running Cubase. It did me very well, thank you very much. And the money I earned wasn't fake. I earn a living from composing music. THAT's real enough for me.

As I said above this is is only my perspective on my experience on the thread topic Mac v PC for Music production. I have constantly said that you can get great results on any platform, computer or not. Composing music is not down to the computer you use. Congrats on the film:)

af_thefragile · 22-03-2009 09:34PM

Mac + Logic is all i need...!!

Oh and long time since i posted here....

Anima · 22-03-2009 11:08PM

I'm really sick of people saying that PCs have all these different hardware manufacturers and thats what makes them unstable etc. Such a weak rubbish argument.

Personally I like OSX, its a nice OS to use and I've no bias towards either platform. I currently have it dual booting with XP on my laptop. My opinion is that people who either dont have the technical knowhow or don't want

What annoys me is the fanboyism and people taking through their arse. These days the Mac and a PC are so similar, hardware wise, its not even worth arguing over. Most PCs use an Intel Core2duo or Quad core, same as the Mac. A good quality motherboard (Intel, ABIT etc) won't cause you problems.

The only difference in stability from a hardware point of view is the peripherals but sure most people use a firewire or USB2 external soundcard with their laptops which means the system hardware has nothing to do with it really. Even if it was inbuilt, its built to a standard and rigoursly tested.

Someone said that XP was released in 2001 as if that was a bad thing. Thats 8 years of Microsoft debugging the ****e out of it. XP with SP3 is solid as a rock. I know its not 64bit but is there even much of a performance gain yet? Also Windows 7 is shaping up to be quite good.

Mac v PC for music production. Throw down the gauntlet.... and please leave it there!

Comments