Mac versus PC
Hey everyone.
I saw a bit on the news this evening about the new iMac. For the money, it's amazing.
I have had a lot of problems with my equipment because I have Windows Xp Media. I have the GNX4, a MIDI Keyboard, and a Tascam 1082. Sometimes my PC reboots on a whim. It's very frustrating.
Is a MAC better for audio/video/picture than PC? I have heard it's much more stable than Windows/PC. Also, is the iMac powerful enough to handle audio/video/picture creation/management? It seems to good to be true because on the high end it's only $1,800.
Your opinions are appreciated.
I saw a bit on the news this evening about the new iMac. For the money, it's amazing.
I have had a lot of problems with my equipment because I have Windows Xp Media. I have the GNX4, a MIDI Keyboard, and a Tascam 1082. Sometimes my PC reboots on a whim. It's very frustrating.
Is a MAC better for audio/video/picture than PC? I have heard it's much more stable than Windows/PC. Also, is the iMac powerful enough to handle audio/video/picture creation/management? It seems to good to be true because on the high end it's only $1,800.
Your opinions are appreciated.
Comments
The thing is, the mac operating system tends to hide things away from the user, but also keeps itself cleaner than XP. However, a well run PC will outperform a equally priced mac everytime, in every aspect. The key is to keep the OP on the PC running clean - no unecessary programs; no viruses etc.
The reason why I have stuck with PCs is the ease of changing hardware - you can build a rippin PC yourself for a fraction of the cost of a mac and also upgrade and install new hardware yourself. I also am an avid gamer - no games on a mac!
That said, if you dont like going into detail with hardware or into the depths of OPs, a mac might be a better choice as they tend to maintain themselves better.
The speak about macs having less viruses is rubbish. They have less viruses because very few people (compared to PCs) use them. When more people start using them, you just watch - the viruses will appear like mushrooms after rain.
I have both. My mac has no A/V and is on the net full time, never ONE virus. I think it's cuz hackers feel there's not enough of them around to bother. Mine's behind a firewall anyway, so I don't worry about that stuff. But I protect my XP machines like a 17-year-old Angelina Jolie.
My general take is that a mac is a really good machine, I like the O/S...the drawback of course, and always has been, s/ware availability.
The only other thing I feel is a big difference is that PC's tend to be pretty hi-maintenance - (CONstant patches, updates, a/v maintenance - while macs are much less trouble. Think Paris Hilton v. Mira Sorvino. Both good units, but one is just more of a headache.
I'm looking for a 'Jennifer Anniston'. A good unit with little or no maintenance required.
I have a pretty high end PC and get a little frustrated @ times because it seems to be 'unstable' when I have my MIDI KB, GNX4, and Control Surface running @ the same time.
I have the same concern with the Mac, that some software is not compatible. I don't do a lot of gaming because I have the XBOX 360....which is amazing.
I do a lot of video and pictures, so I need something that can handle video memory well too.
With that said, if I am going to use my 'unit' :oops: for just audio and video editing/recording/managing, is the IMAC a better choice.
Thanks for your help.
A PC running windows is the most versatile type of computer you can run, but this very versatility is (in part) what causes the problems. For music production I have a dedicated build of XP, optimised for the task, no games, no Office. etc. And it works just fine. But PC's need maintainece, I regularly defrag the disk with Diskeeper, scan for malware with SpyBot S&D, and that's all it takes to keep decent system running well.
As, I am typing this my PC is booted into Ubuntu Studio (that's Linux BTW), I feel this will be the best solution for me in the near future. I plan to drop windows ASAP. But at the present time my soundcard isn't fully supported (it is planned in the next month or so(. I also need to get a few PC apps running under WINE, or possibly VMWare.
So PC (Windows) or Mac? IMHO PC & Linux is the best (with a few caveats
hardware and software choices for PC are immense by comparison.
Big problem is users buy into the DO IT ALL PC.. and use them for multiple applications not realizing they hinder the performance. Even gamers are strong advocates of not junking up the PC since so many resources are required for a better gaming experience. Same goes for audio.. worse yet, Video which requires even more hardware and memory/speed along with a hefty power supply.
The worse small sprint is MIN SYS REQUIREMENTS.. this gets so many in the land of confusion, dismay. Double those standards for doing audio, triple them for video as a general rule.
For instance, audio software does not indicate what is required to run multiple plugins, how many tracks etc. Users seem happy until they start playing 8-12 tracks or more with VST's RTAS synths and then get very disappointed. So if you plan on having a lot of DAW functions, get the faster comp, abundant memory and a separate HDD just to store your audio.
Going back to gamers trying to use on board video.. ha! Good luck. Then they end up requiring more memory, sound card, and a very powerful Video card and high capacity power supply.
You can run on minimum requirements.. just like you can get a 4cyl up a steep incline. It'll get there, but it may sputter, take a longer time from A to B, and require mucho RPM's on the tach.. unless you have a turbocharger and other hardware that adds performance.
Mac and PC are as capable, but it really depends on the usage and limits placed upon the user themselves.
I never ever have problems with my PC. I know what it can handle etc etc so I never expect anything from it that it simply can't do (my computer is a lil tiny 1.1 GHz w/ 512 MB RAM) it runs PTP fine for what I want to do. I don't use more then 1 plugin ever at a time anyways.
Here is the big *BUT*, I just got a USB 2.0 card. It has 2 outer port and 1 inner port. (this is the ONLY THING thats going wrong with my pc and I can't get it right) Well, it supposed to upgrade me to 2.0 connectivity for the higher speeds @ around 480 ... blah blah ... I stuck it in a PCI slot andwhenever I plug anything that is *capable* of 2.0. It still pops up that message saying \"if I plug into a 2.0 port this thing can run faster ...... click here for a list .... \"
So I click the bubble and it shows the adapter I bought which is a VIA Rev 5 or later USB universal host controller. (In device manager it has this and underneath it has the \"VIA USN Enhanced Host Controller\")
Anyways, back to what I was saying, when I click the bubble it states that \"whatever controller is listed in bold, plug into one of that controllers free ports\". So underneath that it has 2 free ports and I have 3 ports on that stupid card and whatever port(on the card) I plug my 2.0 capable (external H.D.) into, it still says that those ports are free and furthore again states that \"I should plug this into a 2.0 port yada B.S. yada\"
So, if theres that bold print there, I'm sure it knows I have a 2.0 card installed. So, is it the card? Is it the drivers? The card I got said I didn't need the driver disk if I use XP which I do.
WHAT AM I DOING WRONG??? or IS THIS CARD CRAP?
here is the card> http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=USB2PORT-PCI&cat=CCD
I'm hoping someone has had the experiance of \"upgrading\" to USB 2.0 thru a expansion card.
(oh wait this isn't a pc troubleshooting forum? DAM!:))