Ahhh the age old question. I find I get better answers out of the pool here than I do on PC forums and articles. You guys are just so dammed smart!
Ok So my lap top is not meeting my requirements anymore. Im doing alott of music and audio recording. SO Im looking for something better. I want a desktop becuase it just runs audio much better.
My choices:
IMAC 20 Inch with the new leopard system looks very cool and I like some of there new features. 2.2 ghz dual dore intel chip, 1 g ram 1200 bucks! without apple care.!
Dell: one of the many choices could get more power for less money, dual 2.8 ghz or 3 ghz more ram all under the price of the IMAC. But im not so keen on vista and Im not happy with what IVe been dealing with my music programs.
OR DO i wait for the NEW set of chips, the quad core AMDs?and go with a pc with one of those.
would you rather have a less powerful mac ? but more reliable and easy.
or a stronger as skicking pc with no retail value?
ive only owned PCs so this is a big different choice for me.
I definitely like the availability of software for PC. I own both (laptops) but my Mac is my main computer (screens bigger). With mac you can run windows on it either with separate drive partitions or a program that works over OS10 well with a MacBookPro.
Repair costs for Mac suck total ass compared to PC. A power supply went out on a friends and it cost $300 to fix. Mine went out on my PC and cost me $20 to fix.
If you are doing any AV you have to get a MAC. I’ve recorded demos and performances and practices for my musical adventures. Music being one of my big passions in life.
I’ve used AV editing software on both, and the only PC-based system that worked ok was one that only did that. It was a system sale, no browsing the internets, no typing, no IM, just made for editing video, and it still had issues, albeit few.
I then used the MAC systems. Some of the systems at my university radio and TV stations were high powered new MACs, some were older desktop consumer models, they all worked smoothly. never had an issue with them.
I have/use both (network administrator). Since you are interested in music (editing/creating), go with a Mac. The iMac 20" is very nice, but get 2 GB’s of RAM. After market RAM purchased from Newegg.com is just fine. Like what was posted, Windows can be dual booted in the new OSX Leopard, natively. When comparing a processor in a PC to that of a Mac, it is not apples to apples. Mac designs its programs for specific hardware → efficient. PC designs its programs for many types of hardware → inefficient.
I used to be a pure PC enthusiast until this school year, when we built a Mac lab for graphics/video production.
[quote]TheDudeAbides wrote:
Like what was posted, Windows can be dual booted in the new OSX Leopard, natively. [/quote]
Are you sure you meant to write dual boot? Doesn’t make sense to speak of dual booting an OS in another, let alone natively.
Nice pun. But that’s not true anymore. Hertz for hertz, PowerPCs were indeed plenty superior to their x86 counterparts (I’m typing this on an 800Mhz iMac), but Macs dropped the platform some time back.
Huh? I’m confused here. Who is this “PC” that designs for many types of hardware? And what’s stopping him/her from using optimized compilers?
[quote]lixy wrote:
TheDudeAbides wrote:
Like what was posted, Windows can be dual booted in the new OSX Leopard, natively.
Are you sure you meant to write dual boot? Doesn’t make sense to speak of dual booting an OS in another, let alone natively.
When comparing a processor in a PC to that of a Mac, it is not apples to apples.
Nice pun. But that’s not true anymore. Hertz for hertz, PowerPCs were indeed plenty superior to their x86 counterparts (I’m typing this on an 800Mhz iMac), but Macs dropped the platform some time back.
Mac designs its programs for specific hardware → efficient. PC designs its programs for many types of hardware → inefficient.
Huh? I’m confused here. Who is this “PC” that designs for many types of hardware? And what’s stopping him/her from using optimized compilers?[/quote]
You can’t dual boot from one OS to another, but you can run emulators, and some of these are very fast, especially if you have a newer processor with special support. It’s called a virtual machine. VMWare (and others) make software to facilitate this.
If you’re doing multimedia, definitely get a dual core or a quad core, and 2 GB of RAM minimum. If you’re savvy, put together a computer yourself and run Windows on it. If you’re savvier, put it together and run Linux on it. If you’re rich, just buy a Mac.
You can dual boot Mac’s to run Windows now that they’re using Intel’s instead of the aforementioned PowerPC platform.
Likewise, you can run Leopard OS on PC’s.
I believe what TheDudeAbides was referring to about hardware levels was the efficiency that Mac programs have over PC programs when it comes to the HAL and also Mac’s require less (if any) drivers for their systems to run efficiently.
I work with both; actually, I manage about 15x as many Windows machines as Macs at my school (I’m the one-man IT Department).
I find that I prefer Macs. I find them at least as easy to use as Windows XP, networking is a breeze, installing software (and expecting it to run first time) is better than on the Windows machines.
As far as installing programs on Mac’s are concerned, don’t you just copy the file from the installation CD/DVD to the hard drive and you’re ready to go?
I’ve read about it but don’t have any practice in that department.
So lets say I waited and got the new AMD Phenom 2.4 Quad core chip with 4g of RAm. Still cheaper than an Imac? you would still go for the IMAC? with 2.2 ghz dual core and 2 g of ram?
[quote]
What on earth do you think you can exploit a dual proc (or a quadcore!) clocked at 3Ghz for? (serious question)[/quote]
Longterm value. Sooner or later that power will be standard, and Audio and its programs seem to take up so much power. Its annoying when bouncing back and forth between my audio interface , Ableton live, and REason. It drains my system. freezes and crashes.
Plus then i figure why not be able to play a game or two as well?
Misconception, the Intel Quad Cores outperform the AMD Quad Cores clock for clock, so if you’re in the market now there is no need to wait for the new AMD’s.
They also overclock better according to the reviews i’ve read.
If you’re getting Vista, I suggest getting Vista Ultimate x64. It won’t limit you in any areas and it will take full advantage of your 4GB of RAM. Once you’re used to it, from everything i’ve heard, Vista really isn’t bad. I’ve heard it’s as stable as XP and SP1 is coming out soon which should pick it up in the areas where it falls short.
I would never “buy” a computer. Building is much cheaper, more rewarding, plus you know the ins and out of your computer and learn how to fix problems.
I’m running a C2Q @ 3.78 ghz (2.4 stock) w/ 4 gigs ram, about 1 TB space, etc for under 2k (I bought a lot of extra stuff most people wouldn’t be using including 350 bucks worth of cooling parts).
Vista ultimate 64 runs WAY better than 32. I would never get a 32 OS at this stage in the game. I’m very happy with vista. I hate windows. Its always given men problems,but Vista is pretty damn stable compared to xp when it was this new. Vista runs all the games (new and old) very well. No slow down that I can see.
If you play games, you HAVE to get a PC. Macs has crappy video cards and why would you want to emulate windows via bootcamp?
At least w/ a PC, you can upgrade about anything, where as with mac, you’re stuck with almost every stock other than adding more ram or swapping out a hdd.
AMDs new chips are crap. No OC headroom, slow, expensive. I used to love amd back when they had good stuff (think athlon) but not anymore. Bought my first intel in 10 years. I’m happy with a quad, considering most new games can use more than 2 threads now.
If you want to build one, PM me w/ a max spending limit and I can point you in the right direction. I’m really a geek at heart, lol.
[quote]MISCONCEPTION wrote:
Ive read the the AMD phenom will be a decent chip. I dont know ?[/quote]
Don’t expect it until February or March, and even then I wouldn’t want to expect it at all.
Clock for clock it’s slower than Intel’s current offerings. It will also debut at a higher price than the Intel competition. It’s overclocking ability is non-existent. It uses more power also.
Basically Phenom is a bust; a late disappointing move by AMD to enter the quad core desktop market.
Your best bet assuming you go PC is Core 2 Duo with 2+GB of ram, which actually isn’t all that expensive.
For under $1400 shipped you can get a Quad core Intel CPU, 4GB of ram, 1TB of raid HDD space, a great video card that will run today’s games, a good sound card, and a dvd burner, not to mention a nice case and an extremely reliable power supply. Throw in your choice of speakers and a monitor and that’s one heck of a system.
[quote]graphicsMan wrote:
You can’t dual boot from one OS to another, but you can run emulators, and some of these are very fast, especially if you have a newer processor with special support. It’s called a virtual machine. VMWare (and others) make software to facilitate this.
[/quote]
OSX Leopard comes with Boot Camp - works just like lilo or grub or any other boot loader.
[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
I believe what TheDudeAbides was referring to about hardware levels was the efficiency that Mac programs have over PC programs when it comes to the HAL and also Mac’s require less (if any) drivers for their systems to run efficiently.[/quote]
Yeah, that sounds much better. At least someone got it.