uarte wrote:Your exact prior statement was "no serious soundtrack composer would use a laptop as his master machine" and I disagreed with that.
You disagreed and the ultimately proved my point by admitting that no serious soundtrack composer would use a laptop *ALONE.* Which, incidentally, was my point all along, before you completely tweaked it to build a straw man upon.
My larger point (and I will simply quote my prior statement, which you did not disprove)
I didn't need to. You disproved it by admitting that you'd need a SLAVE with some real muscles to do serious soundtrack work.
"There are plenty of "serious" soundtrack composers who would or could use a laptop as their master machine"
Impossible for you to say -- you have excluded a vast number of people who consider themselves "serious" composers, not to mention many thousands of pros who do pro audio work on laptops in general.
Virtually every kid with a computer considers himself a genius, an artist and a serious professional. But that is completely irrelevant.
And I might add, that even in my own quote, I stated clearly that you could use a laptop AS THE MASTER
Thus admitting that you can't do that kind of work on a laptop ALONE. Hence proving my point. For all practical purposes, you could use an old MacPlus as the master, if the real load is handled by a beefy PC.
Re: a "SERIOUS DAW machine has at least three internal large-capacity drives" is only applicable to situations where you need three internal large-capacity drives. There are plenty of pro audio scenarios where even a single, large SSD is plenty. Again, we're not talking exclusively "serious" composers here
You're not, but I was. You're continuously trying to move the goalpost in order to feel that you're right. Like I said many times, my statement was related only to serious soundtrack work and nothing else. So, I really couldn't care less if a DJ needs to show off his MBP to feel that he's "cool".
who need access to large sample libraries. We're talking pro audio in general.
Again, *YOU* are. I was only talking about serious soundtrack work. And yeah, for that you DEFINITELY need large sample libraries. And guess what, those don't even fit in your MBP, or any other laptop.
The desktop CPU will still beat the mobile chip, but not by that much.
Vague and generic statement that means nothing. And how much more do you have to spend in order to get a mobile processor that approaches the performance of a decent desktop i7? And why would anyone spend more money to get less performance? That's why serious composers only use laptops on the go, to sketch ideas with.
I gave a list of reasons, starting with the most obvious, as I said, "Some people simply prefer to use a Mac, some people simply prefer to use Windows, and there is nothing wrong with that either way."
That's not a valid answer and it actually further proves my point, that fanboysm is so deleterious that people prefer to accept compromises and spend more money just to be part of the cult.
Just because you can't understand why someone might have a personal preference, doesn't make those people cultists.
Personal preference is irrelevant in technology. People buy Vuitton bags for the same reason they buy Apple products, because they're convinced that these products are so superior, their excessive price is justified. And they rationalize that 24/7. But it's not, because, like I said before, everything from your perspective is rationalization. Apple doesn't offer rugged laptops, well it's because nobody needs them! Apple doesn't allow you overclock, well, it's because these machines are so powerful, you don't need to overclock! That's rationalization.
"Like I said, people who use macs generally don't have high requirements. Those who do have PC slaves that handle the heavy loads. And that includes virtually all major soundtrack composers."
Again, you seem to be very caught up on the whole "major soundtrack composers" argument
Because that's what my argument was about. But since you cannot tackle it without proving my point (that laptops alone are unsuitable for that kind of work) then you keep changing the goalpost by including every "professional", and by that you mean every person who thinks is one.
i've repeatedly indicated that not everyone here is interested in being a major soundtrack composer
And I've repeatedly indicated how completely irrelevant that statement was, since my assertion ONLY regarded serious soundtrack work.
As for people who use macs "generally don't have high requirements," that may very well be true compared to your "major soundtrack composers"
And that, of course, means that I was right and the only way you can challenge me is via silly diversion like "yes, but a MBP is great for anyone who thinks he's a genius and a serious pro!" I don't doubt that, but what does it have to do with my original assertion that laptops (and by that I always meant laptops ALONE) are unsuitable for serious soundtrack work?
My clients have benefited from me just having a Mac around
Of course, because most of your mac clients wouldn't even look at you, if you didn't have a mac. But guess what, Hans (Zimmer) dumped ALL of his macs and couldn't care less what other people say, because the mac cultists praise his custom PC's when they are in his studio, in order to be "nice" to him and then ask him favors, and not exactly because they actually believe what they say...
I also never said that Apple machines cost less. Please re-read my original comments.
Actually you said that as long-term investment, they kind of do. Which is a typical erroneous fanboy argument that assumes that all PC's are made with inferior components and therefore break down only after a limited time, forcing the owner to buy more PC's. I already explained how completely invalid that argument is.
Some pro audio users have specifications clauses in their contracts for what software and hardware they must use. Granted, this is not common, but it does happen, and has happened to me. If you've ever dealt with corporate IT departments for companies that have media departments, this is actually more common than you may realize.
Irrelevant, because you aren't talking about their PERSONAL machines. Lots of Apple cultists use windows computers at work for the same reason. But that means exactly what? My argument applies when people actually have a CHOICE.
I work with one such company, for which I do post production, where their IT department favors a specific hardware platform, so they keep buying that platform. You may think that's insane, and it may well be, but some businesses are run that way.
So, I'm not allowed to say that's insane? That's all I did, saying that buying the new MacPro for audio is utterly insane, and I even explained in detail why.
They are, in fact, not free, even though they may say that on the website.
Just as the same kind of on-site warranty from Apple (which costs extra...) isn't completely free either.
If you talk to the folks at Dell Business, for example, at least as of the last time I asked, you can actually get them to remove the 3-year on-site warranties in some cases and knock off a few hundred bucks
With Apple you don't have the luxury of such choice. So, why pick on Dell?
I am referring to a statement that you made which was, "macbook is a consumer-grade machine that would never ever pass military standard testing, like most business laptops do."
First, you are factually incorrect that "most" business laptops have "military standard testing".
No, I'm not. Most of the business laptops that cost as much as MBP's or more definitely have passed military certification. Guess what, the military is a HUGE client worldwide and the top lines of every large manufacturer are perfectly aware of that and don't like the idea of losing contracts for that reason. Toshiba makes their "Toughbooks" almost exclusively for military clients.
As for you having the option of buying a Windows machine with "military standard testing," that's fine... go for it. Those ruggedized machines are indeed great to have for those that need that type of specification. However, my point was that MacBook Pros and many high-quality but NON-MILITARY grade computers can easily stand up to the task of professional day-in day-out professional rigor.
No, they can't. Because if you drop them, most likely they break. That easy. You have just arbitrarily decided that ruggedness isn't important to a professional only to rationalize the fact that Apple laptops aren't much rugged at all, despite their price.
The fact that you have a "military" grade machine is great, and I'm sure yours can take more abuse than mine. But my machines' lack of military certification hasn't prevented me from doing professional work.
Again, irrelevant and not the point. If your MBP were truly rugged, you'd be bragging about it.
As I mentioned, I own both and can compare them side-by-side. As I mentioned, I'm happy using either one, and both are well built, but I can guarantee that the MacBook Pro is physically superior in materials and workmanship
You're not unbiased and your guarantee means nothing to me. Either you can prove that statement with verifiable facts or you can't. That simple.
Having said that, I also clearly said, "you can tweak and customize Windows computers far more than Macs", but you may want to review your own actual statement, which was, "There's nothing you can do to improve a mac....You cannot tweak a mac because Apple won't let you." Which is simply incorrect. Your dismissal of what I wrote does not nullify the facts.
You're really splitting hair here. If it makes you happy, I can revise my statement to something like "Apple won't let you tweak their laptops to any *SIGNIFICANT* degree where the increase in performance would be dramatically noticeable."
What point of yours did I just prove, that "There's nothing you can do to improve a mac....You cannot tweak a mac because Apple won't let you."? Again, that's factually incorrect.
Again, I have to repeat what I said before: "that (bootcamp) is the ONLY tweak that can bring dramatic improvements." Apple won't let you tweak a MBP to any SIGNIFICANT level where the increase in performance would be dramatic.
On the other hand, if someone wants to go the Hackintosh route, I know of many people that overclock their Hackintoshes and get some amazing performance for a great price.
Again, what you're saying makes no sense, since you also agreed that those computers would perform better under windows. At least with music/audio software. So, that's an IRRATIONAL choice. Once again, am I not allowed to say that's an irrational choice without fanboys like Svenne taking it as personal insult?
I agreed with your prior statement on this topic, and also agree that it depends entirely on the project requirements... and yes, if you are doing large orchestral mockups, plugin count is indeed quite important. I don't think we need to argue on that one.
But that's exactly what I was arguing about before you diverted the discussion to "people who think they're serious pro" in general. If you need to work with large orchestral mockups, you need as much power as you can get. And it would be completely IRRATIONAL to forgo that and accept compromises just because Apple's icons look prettier or the case is more stylish.
Knowing someone is not the same thing as being able to speak for them. And so what if you know them? I'm happy you know them, but it doesn't nullify the point that they (and many other professionals -- not just big LA composers that you may or may not know), are using Macs for professional purposes.
Again, it's a straw man, because I never said that macs can't be used for professional purposes. I said that it's highly irrational to want to spend more money to get less performance. And yeah, I'm perfectly aware that the world is full of irrational people. But that means exactly what?
I simply made the point that "the platform is irrelevant to the level of work produced. Users of both platforms are limited only by their own skills and talents."
No, it's not irrelevant at all. A windows computer can do more than a similarly-equipped mac. And that doesn't mean the mac can't get the job done. It means it's overpriced and underperforming compared to the windows machine, and aside from using Logic, any other reason to favor a mac over a windows machine that performs better and possibly costs less is only dictated by sheer irrationality (like fanboysm.)
So what if studios don't change computers that often?
That simply explains why macs are still so prevalent. Because ten years ago I would totally agree with you that mac was the way to go for a professional. Now that there is no longer a difference and macs are actually under-performing, lots of new machines are becoming windows-based. And, like I said, the fact that Apple has decided the MacPro is a machine exclusively dedicated to 4k video editing, makes buying a MacPro an even more irrational decision, because you'd be paying for things that you won't be using (like the monster GPU's.) Again, I'm not saying macs can't get the job done (please stop beating that dead horse), but that there is no valid and rational justification to spend more money to get less computer.
I'm also not recommending DAW users jump on the new Mac Pros unless they need the video capabilities.
You aren't, but the vast majority of people who buy into the mac cult do, even if it's blatantly absurd.
I certainly respect that using Windows machines "makes sense" to you. I am not criticizing you for making that choice. Other people look at this differently than you, and that doesn't make them better or worse than you.
More irrelevant straw men. I've never said I'm "better" than anyone, but I can criticize people's choices if they're based on sheer irrationality, can't I? I know that people like Svenne would want me banned from this forum because I dare to say things that upset him, but that's his problem. I'm not insulting anyone here. If you choose to be civil with me, I'm civil. If you choose to insult me and post falsehoods on me, like Svenne has done, I won't insult you either (because that's not what I do, and I challenge Svenne to prove otherwise) but I WILL point out that you have an irrational hatred for anyone who dares to criticize Apple. So, maybe it's HIM that has issues, not me...
I ran the numbers for my own studio, and the difference is minimal in my case
You do rationalize an awful lot. You know what that means, don't you? Cubase, Kontakt, VEP and other audio software run SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER on windows, and the evidence is everywhere. Now you have accepted to use a lesser machine that costs you more, and I pointed out that's an irrational choice dictated by something different than trying to achieve the best results. And you confirmed that when you basically told me that your mac clients wouldn't even look at you if you didn't have a mac. I understand your choice, what I'm saying is that it makes no sense from the point of view of effectiveness and production per dollar spent.
I didn't need someone else to tell me what I should or should not run in my studio
Again, another irrelevant straw man, as I've never told you what you should use nor do I care what you use. All I said is that there is no rational reason to accept a penalty in performance just to be "part of the club", especially when the club is actually shrinking dramatically (pretty funny how fanboys happily point out that desktop PC's shed 10% per year without realizing that figure includes macs, whose sales are shrinking at an even faster rate.)
Sure it makes sense for some people to use Macs -- even if you personally consider them overpriced and under-performing.
It's not my opinion, they're FACTUALLY overpriced and under-performing. You said it yourself, but somehow later rationalized it by claiming that the difference isn't significant (and even going to the silly extreme of claiming that 30% is NOT a significant difference...) Now THAT is a personal opinion that's not backed by any evidence.
then we have a communication problem that may not be able to be solved any time soon, which is, sadly, what I suspect will be the result of this exercise.
Like all fanboys, you start every discussion from a point of view of prejudice. You have already decided that I'm crazy and you have openly stated that with Svenne, the guy who accused me of everything he's done to me.
But the delta between Windows and Mac performance is smaller than ever, based on tests I have run myself
I'm sorry but you only have your word to back that. And you're not exactly super partes.
having been a heavy Windows user and follower of TAFKAT's excellent DAW Bench work. While there is no doubt a Windows machine of the same price as an Apple machine will give you more plugins and better lower latency performance, the difference in price, amortized over the total cost of ownership in a business lifecycle is not that much
Like I said (but you obviously aren't listening) that's a typical fanboy argument that has been shot down over and over and over because it starts from the erroneous assumption that macs last longer and they're made with better parts.
And as I stated, Windows performance is indeed better than Mac performance on a similar speced machine -- and Windows does indeed give you more bang for the buck. I've said that over and over. I'm not debating that. However, the delta between Windows and Mac performance is actually smaller than ever now, and with a decent Mac, there is more than enough headroom for very complex pro audio projects at very good latencies.
That's a faulty argument that you can't back with evidence. What has Apple done to improve CoreAudio lately? Nothing, because they don't care. On one side they want the masses to buy their toys (iPhone, iPad etc.) and on the other they're trying to court video editors. Nothing in between. Microsoft, on the other hand, has greatly worked to improve audio performance, and you can clearly see the difference between Windows 7 and 8.1, which is why I'm now using the latter (and not because it's fancy, as the Apple-paid propaganda has been successful in making clueless people believe that Windows 8 is a bad OS. One, however, that has been adopted by more people than all the OSX versions combined. So much for "failure"...) So, if W7 had better audio performance than OSX and W8 has improved on that, how is it possible that OSX is suddenly "king of the audio", without Apple having done anything about it? That sounds a lot to me like the typical fanboy argument whereby Intel CPU's that go into macs are "special"... (and, ironically, they are indeed, because those are the cheaper chips that can't be overclocked...)[/quote]
I'm seeing about 20%-30% max or so Windows improvement compared to Macs
Assuming your figures are factual (you have provided no verifiable evidence for that), on what planet 30% is NOT a significant difference? On planet rationalization only.
Desktop: i7 3770k, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX770 + GT640-DCSL fanless, 3 monitors (30" 2560x1600 + 2x 27" 1920x1080), 256 GB SSD (OS), 2 TB SATA III (audio), 3 TB SATA III (sample libraries), 3x 3 TB USB 3.0 (backup/archives), RME UFX, Win 8.1 Pro x64, Cubase 7.5, Sonar X3, Vienna Ensemble Pro 5.
Slaves: 2x i7 2700k, 16 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD, 3 TB SATA III, Win 8.1 Pro x64, Vienna Ensemble Pro 5.
Laptop: 17" HP EliteBook 8770w (i7 3820QM 2.7 Ghz/3.7 Ghz max OC, 16 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD, 1 TB SATA III), RME Babyface, Win 7 Pro x64, Vienna Ensemble Pro 5, Cubase 7.5, Sonar X3.