Comments about:

Apple's G5 vs. PC audio comparison: a joke?

Hello.
I am going to be purchasing a new computer and either cubase,logicpro,or other... I was thinking of purchasing a g5 dual 2.5, but I am a+ certified, and I could build a nice pc instead for less.- I heard I would have to make at least 2 pc's (one for gigastudio3). I also heard that mac's os is much smoother than microsofts. What do you think is best? Also, have you heard about a g5 3.0? Honestly, is there a difference? Everyone seems to have cubase and pc's. But they all talk as if they wish they had a dual g5. What is best for a musician like myself?

constructive criticism would be nice.
thanks

I don't really think that all of these comparisons are helpful or by the sound of it very helpful. Its far to easy to criticise any test with optimised code this, specific add-ons that. It boils down to one thing, Which one make life easier to do the task you are doing. For me, after arguing with people till I'm blue in the face of the benifits of the Apple (Yep I love em!) and them leveling very valid arguments at me, the only thing that has made me pay the hefty price tag twice is the ease of use of the Mac over PC. Mac OS X threatened that for a while some of the rougher edges of unix were smoothed off but now with Panther and the soon to be released tiger the numerous subtle extras will make my PhD much easier, from finding that elusive paper on an obscure subject or author, to being able to get out of the printer exactly what I seen on the screen, so even if it takes me 3 hours to get a graph right I dont uaually have to spend another 3 getting it to come out right in the document.

PCs will probably always boast faster clock speeds on paper, as there are now at least two major chip manufactuers pushing them forwards, but without wanting to get into that there are a lot of things that determine processor power in addition to speed. Windows with all its whistles and bells is still to finiky for my liking and does things in an ilogical way for me even though it is improving in terms of stability.


With apple I know that I get a product that is carefully designed to function in the way I expect it too by one company that elegantly integrates each part rather than a PC which are usually slapped together from the latest fastest components. Don't get me wrong to big companies do do quality controls no doubt but its just that as apple only use very selelct compenents they are able to harmonise the hard and software rather than Windows that has to try and make an opperating system that will cope with all possible comfigurations.

The best example I can give is when i was preparing a report a while back with a 500mhz PIII running Windows NT and Office 97 it took me a whole afternoon to try and order and label the 19 graphs in the results section. After 3 hours I gave up went home to my G3 400 Mhz iMAC with MACOS 9.0.4 and office 2001 and did it in 1-2 hours. For me it doesn't matter if I have the faster computer, if the one I have is the most efficient way of working for me then I'm happy and feel able to glot over others running systems they have to battle against or learn inside out to get it to do what they want. I'm a Biologist and not a computer scientist and so I want a computer that is logical, intuative and if I have to easy to learn when it comes to short cuts, my PowerBook G4 with Mac OS 10.3 offers that and 10.4 will go even further.

Spence

I have 2 Mac.s and one pc, I am running OSX10.3 and XP pro. I like XP pro but love OSX. Every thing works better on the Mac. For video and music Mac.s rule. A dule prossesor Avied pc system is not bad although, I don't have one. I have Cuebase, I hardly use it, I perfer Digitial Performer on the Mac. I would not mind having Logic Pro, I think it is a good ap. By far the top system would be a G5 with a 192 TDM system. I can only wish right now.
As far as speed gose, my pc is a little faster in mhz than one of my Mac.s but the Mac. actualy smokes the pc by about 2 times the speed or more. ( doing the same tasks and running the same programs).
Also I have to do way more work to keep the pc working. Every one writes some thing to f' you up on it. Mac.s are way safer on the net.

Im a Mac lover, they are way more efficient! Although I think they are too pricey.

Hi, I use a 1.8 GHz P4 8 hours everyday at work, the performance is unbelievably crappy. Even compared to the old 233MHz iMac running 9.2...
Looking at performance stats and benchmarks is a good way to divert attention from a system that is imho unusable for any professional application.
I think Apple often fails to point out the real advantages of their systems.
Here's what I usually do when I want to impress Windoze users: (on a 1 GHz 12" PB G4, 768 MB RAM, 10.3)
- start a DVD
- start a song in iTunes
- open 4 Quicktime movies, run them (looped, Audio is set up so you can hear all at the same time, not only frontmost app)
- when all this is running, I start opening a number of apps from the dock, bangbangbang, by fast clicking on the icons
- show off transparent Terminal over movies, and movie running in the dock
- use Expose, to look at all of it - yippee
- then on top of it all, I use BombApp, to show off how the system continues without a hiccup when an app crashes

(If you're mean, you can ask them to attempt this on their XP box.)

Both OS X and XP are great operating systems. I use both, but for different purposes. I use the Mac strictly for video. For anything else, I would say stick with a PC for the same price you can build a faster computer. Take the left over and buy a good audio card.

MY friend,

Go and get a Mac .....

you will never be sorry ....

--------------------------------

we are all happy ....

be happy like us

Hi Guys

Working on both platforms, I think it depends on ....what you want to do with it.
I mean, what kind of music, hardware, how many virtual instruments etc.
The limitation with PC compare to Mac, is the 2 GIg memory Max.
If you want to run a sequencer, plus Gigastudio 3, and some virtual instruments on one PC, you will have to compromise even if you have a very fast machine.

Best
Sophia

you're right, they should use comparable plug-ins. waves perhaps? my guess is that the g5 would still win.

if you are doing music mixes, the plug-in count will typically be an issue long before the track count.

did you know that pro tools le only uses ONE processor? ouch.