 |
 |
It is interesting to me, reading the various replies in the Mac vs. PC area. Like the this gentleman, we use both systems. It used to be difficult to get seamless networking between them, but this hasn't been a problem with more recent additions of both the MAC and PC OS's. Unlike him, we haven't had any problems with stability or support... But then, we aren't an institution, but a business. IT people, when we use them, are as well versed at sound cards and interfaces as they are high res video for applications. This applies to good sound cards / interfaces for Mac's as well. As a business, we control who touches the equipment, and don't hire anyone not qualified. An audio specialist would be consulted as well for advise on interfaces, if needed. This is a real problem for many institutions, hard as it is to fire poor support people. Besides, where is the focus of a support group that is too busy dealing with Marge the secretary's fonts to look at special needs? I've seen this attitude in both the MAC arena and the PC arena. I can't say, at least in our environment, that we have more problems with PC's than Mac's. It is about the same, with an equal number of each type. A dead hard drive is still a dead hard drive. All computers do about the same things, after all, it is just how they go about it. I would say there is truth to the fact that a cheap no-name PC may have all sorts of BIOS / compatibility problems you won't see on a MAC. Fair enough, you pay a lot more for that on the MAC than on the lousy, cheap PC. If you buy reasonable quality PC's, this difference vanishes, and they still are cheaper. The 'really cheap' PC ends up casting a shadow on the better ones. Yes there are 'really cheap' Dells or Gateways, but they simply don't cut the mustard. Can't happen as much on the MAC's, since they can't be had cheap anyway except on eBay. Buy one there, you'll find all sorts of 'problems'. You get what you pay for, in both cases. I have to hand it to Apple, they have managed a monopoly well enough to enforce pretty good sexy industrial design, at the cost of a tiny market share. PC's just haven't quite managed the 'cool' factor yet like Apple, that's for certain. Better function... Not really. Just different. If I'm honest with myself, I like the MAC interface 'a little' better for casual work. Because of the huge number of applications for PC's, they tend to do more of the heavy lifting for us. More software on a single box always means more 'possibilities' for conflicts, PC or Mac. It all comes down to the basics: (no particular order) 1.) Pick the software you want / need to run FIRST, before committing to anything else. 2.) Which (or both?) platform will run everything you need to run ON AN INDIVIDUAL WORKSTATION ? 3.) Is it smarter (usually !) to run your email, word processing, heavy duty spreadsheets, internet on a second separate system ? ANY Pro editing / recording software package is going to strongly recommend you use your machine for as little else as possible, regardless of the platform !!! 4.) In house support.. And what is the quality of the available support. 5.) Is your data to be exchanged directly with others either inside or outside your organization. (Be honest with yourself, forget what you 'like'.) What software (and thus hardware) makes this easiest? 6.) Will the workstation be used for casual web surfing or the like..? If so, you'd best be not using it for serious work unless YOU are the IT guy. It is a nasty world out there, and it is true that 'Mr. Gates' is a disproportional target. Mac's are hardly immune to this either, but being a small target in the market place, it just isn't QUITE as much fun for hackers...yet. There is great antivirus software out there for both systems, but they don't catch everything. Get used to it...it is here to stay for a while. Everyone's situation is different. Best to look at this as a technical exercise of the requirements in particular circumstances. There isn't (IMO, anyway) a right or wrong, one side fits all answer. There are horror stories from both ends of the aisle.. So it is perhaps best to just try to be as clinical about it as possible. -----Original Message----- From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Seubert Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 2:01 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] AV to DV - PC or Mac? I hate the Mac vs. Windows debate (I use both daily) but audio is very different than word processing or sending email, so I'll throw out a few thoughts. In our audio lab we run Gateway PCs with Sound Forge and Wavelab and DAL sound cards. I went PC because our library is 99% Windows and UNIX and the IT people "can't support Macs." Unfortunately, they can't really support Windows audio workstations either, since they don't know anything about sound cards, audio drivers and the specific software we use and the potential for conflicts that arise. Maybe DAL just writes really buggy audio drivers (can anybody confirm this?), or maybe Windows doesn't handle audio drivers well (I don't need confirmation on this) but in my experience there are lots of software/hardware/driver incompatibilities in the PC world. Just try installing Realplayer (a legally distributed virus if there ever was one) on a PC and see how quickly it can make everything else stop working. So either way, you'll likely be on your own to some extent, and if you are on your own, I'd go Mac. Surprisingly, I've never used Macs for audio, but I use them for everything else and there is no way that it can be worse than doing audio on a PC. And once you get your system up and running, never let the IT guys touch it. No service packs, no critical updates, no new versions of the audio software, no driver updates. In our experience, each upgrade will cost you a minimum of two days in getting the thing stable again. As for the cost issue, on high-end machines the cost differences are trivial and it's moot anyway when compared to the cost of a couple people sitting around the studio for an afternoon uninstalling and reinstalling drivers. David Seubert UCSB