SP-FORUMS

im about to buy a new computer just for productoin purposes, and everyone seems to swear by a mac, is there a reason why a mac is so popular for music production?

I dont know much about computers, but maybe its because you can run logic on them?

theres probly some other reason tho

Riup wrote:im about to buy a new computer just for productoin purposes, and everyone seems to swear by a mac, is there a reason why a mac is so popular for music production?

It's because Macs are incredibly stable compared to the ever freezing Windows operating system when things get really heavy on the performance side.

Music production with lots of plug-ins running simultaneously usually is very heavy for a Windows PC, where Macs have way less issues because of the way they handle memory allocation.. it's mainly a technical thing.

Of course, there are also a bunch of Mac-only software packages that are incredibly popular and very good. Together with hardware that runs best with a Mac.

All in all Windows is gaining popularity for a bit when it comes to DAW applications, but Mac still wins hands down when it comes to performance, especially those last generation desktop Macs. Real power house for sure, even the Macbook Pro last gen laptops.

In addition to what phemox said,

A Mac is a closed system - there are only a few configurations of basic mac hardware, whereas a PC could contain any manner of bits and pieces from all sorts of companies of different quality standards.

eg, the network card in an imac is always the same kind of network card. it always has the same firewire chipset, etc.

This means people developing say, an audio interface, can develop drivers that don't have clashes with the other parts of the system - whereas on a PC, there is always the chance that the person is using some piece of hardware X that hasn't been tested to see if it has any issues running at the same time as audio interface Y.

Again with drivers and such - Core Audio.
No installing custom drivers, waiting for updates from separate companies, etc... Core Audio is all handled by apple itself..

Now, having said all this, it is possible to get a PC running just as well, and if you do, it might work out a little cheaper.

Even though it would be unlucky to have such a thing happen, Its a bit hit and miss as to whether or not someone's newly built PC will suffer from drivers interacting badly, etc..


If you want a non mac-fanboy thought on the matter,

here's something to consider:

Apogee, makers of well respected high end audio interfaces.. Have dropped all support for windows.. Now nobody cuts out 90% of their prospective market without good reason!

I beg to differ
I've been using pc's for music production since 1994, and have never considered switching to mac. One of the reasons is that I use several programs that are pc only. Mac is probably great for those that use it, and it may indeed be more stable overall. But I've had minimal fuss with stability on my Windows systems.

My impression is also that pc's are more used for music production than Mac's - well, among most I know anyways. But a Mac is nevertheless probably a great choice - it all comes down to preference, I guess.

^ I think it depends who you look at - most 'pro' studios seem to be mac

most home-studios, are PC. .cos people aint got so much money... alot of people only have 1 computer in the house, rather than a separate studio computer etc.

FACT
a mac that costs 2500 dollars is as powerful as a 1000 dollar pc

the other 1500 goes to a slick case and a hidden anti virus program.

unless your in the big bucks dont bother id say

i got a laptop for 600 dollars that would be at least 1400 dollars if it was a mac

3 gigs, dual-core processor

hurlingdervish wrote:FACT
a mac that costs 2500 dollars is as powerful as a 1000 dollar pc

the other 1500 goes to a slick case and a hidden anti virus program.

unless your in the big bucks dont bother id say

i got a laptop for 600 dollars that would be at least 1400 dollars if it was a mac

3 gigs, dual-core processor

You're wrong in assuming performance can be measured by the internal hardware alone though, the operating system is where the real difference lies.

You're totally right about how Macs are being sold at a far too high price considered what kind of hardware is inside, but the difference is becoming smaller ever since Mac is going Intel these days and is able to dual-boot.

It's unfortunate, but you pay a lot of money for the Apple brand indeed, but most pros would argue it's worth it.

One thing you didn't consider in your comparison is the fact that a legal Windows version costs about 300-500 bucks. So.. a 1000 bucks difference is more accurate and as said it's becoming less and less.

Buying a Mac in most cases isn't more expensive than other brands of laptops either. So, if you want best bang for bucks, you'll have to buy a laptop Mac.

If you've got money to burn, I'd definitely consider a Mac desktop instead though.

of course processing power increases performance! what are you talking about

seriously you cant argue that a 600 dollar powerful laptop is less bang for your buck than a mac

if you are paranoid about viruses and hate right clicking, and have money to burn Macs ftw

but ctrl clicking everything would drive me nuts

i would say that mac's are considered the best for recording bands or multiple tracks at the same time, because of the firewire inputs you can have already with the computer

but i dont really see any benefits for someone who wants to track out their sp's or are just making beats on it

eventually mac's lack of virus scanning is going to nip them in the butt

well, where did you buy such a laptop? that sounds like an excellent deal and i really would prefer a laptop over a desktop for production any day. i mean if later i were to really go all pro with it, id probly buy a mac as long as the vsts i used were compatible.

best buy
hp pavillion

just look at all the specs

i mean unless your making good money then buy a mac i guess

Just don't buy an HP if you plan on using firewire audio interface... I've heard from a few people who had noisey firewire transmissions because of cheap chipsets in HPs

Sony, Toshiba, IBM..

These are the most trusted brands of windows laptop. funnily enough they all cost about the same as macbooks of similar spec.

Operating system a side, Macs and PC's are basically the same. Apple uses higher quality standards when it's comes to internal components but you could easily build a PC to the same specs. I run a dual boot Mac laptop with Windows Xp and Leopard and it handles everything I need to do very well, but I used to do all my stuff on a 1 ghz Dell running 256mb ram and still managed while using ASIO4ALL.
In the end I would agree that the OSX architecture is more effective than anything Windows has out, it really gets all the juices flowing from the dual core chipsets. I actually like to run XP or even 2000 when it comes to a PC, Vista is crap and I don't know about 7. If you just want to track out things from a sampler and do editing in software you could use a $500 Dell and be golden IMO.

of course processing power increases performance! what are you talking about

seriously you cant argue that a 600 dollar powerful laptop is less bang for your buck than a mac

True, but processing power is only half of what you need. If you have an operating system that doesn't know how to take benefit from the processing power; like for instance resource hog called Windows Vista, any more processing power tends to be completely useless. Definitely in comparison to a latest generation Mac with say a Core 2 Duo or Quad Core and more than enough memory..

When it's strictly about performance; then when it comes to music production, video editing, 3D applications, paint or animation software and so on, a Mac would more or less always win hands down. Especially compared to a 600 bucks laptop that might not or only barely even runs the applications you want.

Try running your typical DAW with say 10 plug-ins at a time and do the same on a Mac, you'll notice next to no slow down at all on the Mac.

I have to add to this equation that Mac software tends to be more expensive as well, so it might not be the best bang for bucks if you're good with a PC alternative.

Euclid Ov Oåklånd wrote:Operating system a side, Macs and PC's are basically the same. Apple uses higher quality standards when it's comes to internal components but you could easily build a PC to the same specs.

Yes, totally true. But it would not give you a similar performance, because of the operating system. I'm not saying there aren't PC hardware equivalents, there definitely are. In the end it's difficult to compare a Mac directly to a Windows PC without taking the difference in operating system into account.

If you just want to track out things from a sampler and do editing in software you could use a $500 Dell and be golden IMO.

Yeah, totally true. I wouldn't buy a Mac if you're not planning on using some more software through it as well.