TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- mac or pc?
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

nice. anymore pros and cons i should know of before im getting rid of my whole studio to get money for a mac?? im asking about the whole mac OS also realy. can winamp work there, lol??? is it possible to make my external HDs in a format that XP only can read but Mac can read/write?

quote:

Originally posted by palm nice. anymore pros and cons i should know of before im getting rid of my whole studio to get money for a mac?? im asking about the whole mac OS also realy.

I can answer any specific questions you might have.

quote:

Originally posted by palm can winamp work there, lol???

No, Winamp is PC only.

quote:

Originally posted by palm is it possible to make my external HDs in a format that XP only can read but Mac can read/write?

No, but Mac OS X can read NTFS volumes. XP cannot read Mac OS X Extended file system formatted disks.

and MAC cannot write to NTFS?

quote:

Originally posted by palm and MAC cannot write to NTFS?

Yes it can, however I have only done it over a network. I am not sure if it can write to an NTFS disk directly connected.

quote:

Originally posted by Eric J Yes it can, however I have only done it over a network. I am not sure if it can write to an NTFS disk directly connected.

At least external HDD with NTFS format works with OSX, and I write files on it no problem.

ah cool then my vories is buried. does the same files work in XP later on? lets say i work on a project in reason on both mac and win?

quote:

Originally posted by palm ah cool then my vories is buried. does the same files work in XP later on? lets say i work on a project in reason on both mac and win?

That will be entirely dependent on the application. For example, Ableton Live files work cross platform, however there is a chance certain application files will not.

ok only ableton and reason will be the issue anyway. and itunes

so ive been looking some more.

i dont realy understand the diference between macbook and macbook pro besides the screendriver and sizem so i concluded a normal macbook would fit my needs. I dont run alot of VST and will probably use mostly logics internal devices (if it shows good). All synth will be recorded synths/wavs so I assume i realy dont need Superhot CPU.

This one costs with in black 1500USD (250GB HD, Core 2 Duo 2,4GHz, 2GB Ram). Sounds expensive to me but is it usuable? could get 2GB more ram for 200USD. Looks fresher in black??
What resolution can i max get if i connect an external screen (when using home)?

and btw are macbooks solid?

quote:

Originally posted by palm so ive been looking some more. i dont realy understand the diference between macbook and macbook pro besides the screendriver and sizem so i concluded a normal macbook would fit my needs. I dont run alot of VST and will probably use mostly logics internal devices (if it shows good). this one costs with in black 1500USD (250GB HD, Core 2 Duo 2,4GHz, 2GB Ram). Sounds expensive to me but is it usuable? could get 2GB more ram for 200USD. What resolution can i max get if i connect an external screen (when using home)?

One of the big differences in that the MacBook Pro has a separate graphics chip, where as the macbook has an integrated graphics chip. With the macbook it is going to steal memory from your system RAM for the graphics chip, the pro has its own video RAM. You'll definitely be able to run higher resolution on an external monitor with the pro.

but u think normal macbook manage to run 1600*1200 screen? or seomthing? i think the macbook pro is fucking expensive

From what I have read it will run 1600x1200 on an external monitor. I'd be more concerned about it stealing system RAM for video.

Here is a quote I found:

quote:

The MacBook Pro does not have "essentially the same hardware" as the MacBook. The MacBook Pro has dedicated graphics memory, so graphics processing has dedicated bandwidth separate from main system memory bandwidth. This means that the MacBook Pro's overall performance is less dependent on main system memory bandwidth than the MacBook is. In the MacBook, system and graphics processing have to share the same pipe to main memory. Since graphics processing is extremely bandwidth intensive, both CPU and graphics performance will be negatively impacted by reduced main memory bandwidth on a MacBook.

If I were you, I'd spring for the Pro. If you are going to use it for producing, you need all you can get. You will probably be able to "get by" with the MacBook, but I think you'll eventually be hamstrung by the lack of performance.

On that note, you can get a single 2.8 Quad Core Mac Pro tower for $2,299.00 which is only $300 more than the lower end MacBook Pro, so that's something else to consider.

Personally, I think your experience producing on a standard MacBook will be less than stellar, but I wouldn't even consider going for anything less than a tower for a primary studio workstation. I'm not saying that you CAN'T produce on a MacBook or a MacBook Pro, because lots of people do, but you'll be doing a lot of freezing. I can get about 2 or 3 instances of Massive running on my MacBook Pro before it starts having issues, so that may be a benchmark for you.

Obviously, you'll have to consider your budget here, but if you can't spring for the MacBook Pro or even a full on Pro Tower, maybe you should just consider investing in a good PC, and stick on that platform. Logic can be a bit power hungry, and they are still working out issues with spreading the load among multiple cores. It works pretty well, but there are still some problems with spikes and one core getting overloaded, while the other 3 stay mostly idle. It doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen.

I'll be happy to answer any other questions you may have.

well i already have a killer PC with no problems at all running all kinds of shit. I will probably use alot of freezing in logic as i now only have 1 synth and im not getting any more, maybe swithc this to another. i dont use VST. The thing is i want a laptop and i want logic. i cant realy find any sequencers on PC that i like with included good instruments. I might try cubase one more time before i decide but last time i found it very time demanding. hackintosh would be a solution but i dont have the skills make it work. and i can def not afford a macbook pro, even if i did i dont find it worth it. so yeah, i dont know. as usual im not happy with the products avaliable on the market and want to make something on my own.

Well, see, this is where I'm not quite understanding where you are coming from.

You say you don't use VST's, but you want a package that includes good instruments? And what about EQ and effects? Surely you are not using outboard hardware for things like EQ and compression? Can you clarify?


I hope you are not thinking that the built in instruments in Logic are particularly CPU friendly, because some of them are not, especially in the case of things like Sculpture and Space Designer. Believe me when I tell you that as good as Space Designer sounds, 4 or 5 instances of it on a send bus with a load of tracks sent through it will take down some of the mightiest Mac Pro's, so that's why I'm recommending that you get al you can get if you are going down the Mac route.

if u call the included effects in Logic for VST then im using those ofcourse, what i mean is that i wont use VST-plugins, atleast not for source. Only effects. And once a track (not tune but a track in the project) is good im gonna freeze it. that must be cpu saving right? i hope i can "open up" the freezed tracks again if i wanna edit something? this is also why i wanted to start with logic express caus i assume the simples efex are included there and the heavier ones in full logic? i might look some more at hackintosh to see whether this is something i want to realy do.

If it boiled down to laptops, an Apple (only for six-pin FireWire).

Anything else and it will be PC.

quote:

Originally posted by palm if u call the included effects in Logic for VST then im using those ofcourse, what i mean is that i wont use VST-plugins, atleast not for source. Only effects.

OK, that makes sense, just understand that these can be just as CPU hungry as 3rd party software instruments and effects.

quote:

Originally posted by palm And once a track (not tune but a track in the project) is good im gonna freeze it. that must be cpu saving right?

Yes.

quote:

Originally posted by palm i hope i can "open up" the freezed tracks again if i wanna edit something?

Yes you can.

quote:

Originally posted by palm this is also why i wanted to start with logic express caus i assume the simples efex are included there and the heavier ones in full logic?

Yes, but Express is missing some of the major reasons you'd want to switch to logic, such as Space Designer and some of the better software synths.

quote:

Originally posted by palm i might look some more at hackintosh to see whether this is something i want to realy do.

That's up to you. This approach always seems awfully risky for me. Obviously there are some on this board who are successfully using it and are happy with it, so you may want to consult some of them for advice on this approach.

damn i need to try a mac and logic before buying anything, damn apple, go shame on you. thanks for all the help man eric, realy helpfull in this thread i hijacked

edit: i forgot, i have one more fucking question (well two):
when it all crashes is it hard to "format" everything and install the osx with all its progs again? does the osx CD follows when buying? stuff like that.

Palm, just do it, switch to mac. I was a pc man for 15 years, and finally had to buy a mac as my work uses them, and have never looked back.

They are so hassle free, in 3 months of owning it, it has crashed once but all that meant was force quitting the finder (like explorer in XP) - no computer restart, no data loss etc. That crash was even user error caused as I was using the wrong version (non loepard) program on it.

Eric has given you a real breakdown of the pro and cons, especially of his price analysis between mac and PC. Hackintosh can work for some but I find it self defeating in some respects. Mac are supposed to just work, I know it's a cliche but it's true. it took all of 5 mins (no exaggeration) from opening the box to fully set up, working computer, recording audio on to it. I don't have to do any maintenance, and customizing it to your own preferences is a breeze (easier than windows I dare say). Hackintoshes are fine but why bother with the extra hassle. For what I paid for my Imac, I would have saved probably only $200 building a cheaper PC sourcing the part off the net, but that doesn't take in to account the fact the imac looks great, comes with a beautiful screen, well designed mouse and keyboard, and the OS preinstalled. When you add it all up (including your labour time) hackintoshes are no cheaper.

Some practical cons of macs:

Their somewhat limited ability to upgrade them internally (apart from drives, memory and in some cases video cards) in comparison to a PC.

Cracked software - I do not condone cracked software and believe that people should get paid for what they make, however I do not see anything wrong with demoing software (even a crack) if you intend to buy it if you like it. steinberg infuriates on this matter - you will not find a demo of cubase or nuendo for mac. There is also not a cracked version higher than Cubase SE 1.06 for mac available.
On a mac, if you are used to cheking out software before buying it, you better pray there is a demo version available because unlike PCs, it is far less likely that you find a cracked version to test.

Having said all this, I love the power of my mac, it's stability and all the extra time it gives me while I am not having to tweak/set up a windows based machine.

quote:

Originally posted by palm when it all crashes is it hard to "format" everything and install the osx with all its progs again?

I don't want to get off on a rant here, but...

Like DJ RANN says, I hate to be cliche here, but this is EXCEEDINGLY RARE. There really is no, "oh its been a year, time to reformat and reinstall" type of situation like you get with XP and a PC. There really is no "music-xp.net" type of tweaking necessary where you have to turn off certain services and "optimize" the machine to squeeze every last ounce of juice out of it. It's set up like that from the moment you press the power button. And it doesn't get bogged down with crap as XP always seems to. Trust me, I work in IT, and have loads of experience with multiple operating systems, and OS X is just a lean and mean, fast and efficient operating system. Is it bug free or crash free? HELL NO! Is is hassle free? HELL NO! However, it it about as close to the slogan "it just works" as anything I have ever used and I jack with it far less than any of my Windows, UNIX or UNIX-like based machines (including Linux or Solaris, don't even get me started on Solaris and it's ass-hatery).

Even my best taken care of PC's always need a reinstall after a year or two, simply because XP always just seems to "slow down". Whether this is the result of third party software installs or just from updates that Microsoft puts out, there always seems to be a need to reinstall after a year or so and then XP "magically" runs better after the reinstall.

Here is a nice acid test for you: take a typical XP PC and look at how many processes are running on a machine that's been up and running for 6 months or so. No programs running, just look at it right after boot up completes. Then look at the number of processes running on a Mac running OS X for the same amount of time. The XP box will have 20-25 processes running at minimum, where as the OS X box will have MAYBE 8-10. That doesn't even take into account the fact that you're running a UNIX operating system on a Mac, which is and always has been an industrial strength, high efficiency operating system. Ask anyone who works in corporate IT why databases with gigantic amounts of data are always run on UNIX machines with Oracle, instead of Windows machines with SQL Server. Warehouse in Oracle, Mart in SQL (with Informatica in between). This is standard practice today in corporate IT.

Trust me, this is coming from someone who is a Microsoft developer for a living, so I am certainly no Microsoft-basher. Microsoft software pays my bills and I'll write you a book on what things it is great for. XP is a FANTASTIC operating system and an amazing technical achievement, but if I want to get as close to the iron as possible, I'll go UNIX every time. The truth is that 99% of people just never NEED to get as close to iron as possible because they are not doing anything that's even remotely resource intensive. We fall into that other 1% in the production scene. We need every ounce of power our machine can give us, and that puts us in a niche category. People in things like Graphic Design and 3D modeling would also fall into that 1%.

There are just certain things about the way that Windows was designed that increase the number of layers between you and the hardware, and it's a bit too late in the game for them to change that design now. NT was a great step in the progress of Windows with the switch to a UNIX like "kernel", and Vista is trying to take it a step further by reducing the number of layers between you and the hardware, but they have already traveled too far down a path that they cannot come back from. The UNIX OS design has stood the test of time for damn near 40 years without changing much. Many long-time IT people would agree.

So, is Windows a good production PC platform? Absolutely! I'm just trying to lay out the facts so you can make your own decision. Mac fans can be a bit "up their own arse" sometimes, but there is just something about the way it all works that makes it a pleasure to use and it's pretty damn close to being "hassle-free", especially in the production realm. Draw your own conclusions from the advice myself and others have given you on this and other threads, and make the decision that's right for YOU.

quote:

Originally posted by palm does the osx CD follows when buying? stuff like that.

Don't really understand what you are asking here.

thanks for all the input people. ill see if i can save some money. ive just sold some of my hardware so i have saved some but it might go away on my car.

quote:

Originally posted by Eric J Don't really understand what you are asking here.

if im formating my operating system i would need a install CD/DVD, does it follow when buying or do I have to buy it? same with logic caus the apple site said u can get it pre-installed.

thanks

edit: one more question. can i use normal usb keyboard and mouse or do u have to buy apples when im using my macbook at home.

quote:

Originally posted by palm if im formating my operating system i would need a install CD/DVD, does it follow when buying or do I have to buy it?

The OS install CD is included with purchase of a new computer.

quote:

Originally posted by palm same with logic caus the apple site said u can get it pre-installed.

If you got it preinstalled, you would also receive the original install discs.

quote:

Originally posted by palm edit: one more question. can i use normal usb keyboard and mouse or do u have to buy apples when im using my macbook at home.

You must use an apple keyboard. Remember the key layout is slightly different, so you wouldn't want to use anything else.

edit: found out

quote:

Originally posted by palm the keyboard have two usb ports, can the mouse be routed thru it so i wont waste two usbs?

Yes, the mouse can be connected to the keyboard.

i might get the black macbook caus i realy need a laptop anyway and i could probably see if logic is what i want later to then get a workstation mac. i guess its run Reason pretty simple as i managed to run it on 512mb Ram AMD Athlon XP1500 before (1,34GHz, 1 Core). Then i could try logic to see if its good and if i realy need a workstation. I dont like the macbook pro, looks like it could break easily. Any advice on how to get discounts on macs? also does it exists free FTP progs for mac? openoffice does that work on mac? another thing. is it possible to somehow "upgrade" the macbooks when better processors, ram etc will be avaliable?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.