Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Post general topics related to Cubase 7 and Cubase Artist 7 here.

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby Wolfie2112 » Mon Jan 06, 2014 5:11 am

LOL!!! I don't recall anyone "violently reacting to the truth". I choose Mavericks as my weapon of choice to host my primary DAW's...what's the problem with that??? I don't know if Mac is "better " than a PC, I don't really care. And AGAIN; I use BOTH platforms in the studio on a daily basis. I love Win 7, I love OS. They both get my productions done reliably, they're solid, so WTF? If I'm a fanboy (whatever that is), or an Apple cultist (sounds kinda cool actually :D), whatever...call me anything you want. I can't believe I'm actually responding to this 8-)

And yes, one can achieve pro results with a MacBook. I just completed a larger project on mine. Granted, I used a slave to host the VI's, so I cannot vouch for it as a standalone...although I suspect it would not be adequate for obvious reasons (as with any system with similar specs).
Wolfie2112
Junior Member
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:43 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby papi61 » Mon Jan 06, 2014 5:31 am

Wolfie2112 wrote:LOL!!! I don't recall anyone "violently reacting to the truth".


ROFLMAO!! Yet more proof you live in an alternate reality. Here's a selection of the invectives you have thrown at me:

- not sure what your issue is
- you take things way to personal around here!!
- you hate Mac and everything it stands for
- plain childish and unprofessional
- Are you saying that guys like James Horner, Trevor Rabin and James Newton Howard are idiots because they use Mac? Of course you are.
- THAT is the most idiotic thing I've heard so far in 2014!

And that doesn't include the really hilarious things you've said about windows and mac that are 100% untrue.

I choose Mavericks as my weapon of choice to host my primary DAW's...what's the problem with that???


Again, kid, there is no problem and I couldn't care less what you use. But when you claim that windows doesn't work for pro audio unless heavily tweaked or that an old mac pro is a "beast" (whatever that means), it's fairly obvious that you have joined a cult and you're not talking logically, let alone competently.

an Apple cultist (sounds kinda cool actually :D)


Then don't get hysterical if I call you that (see quotes above.)

And yes, one can achieve pro results with a MacBook.


Once again, you can only reply with a straw man and a diversion. I never said that. What I said is that no serious soundtrack composer would use a laptop as his master machine. And the names you dropped actually prove my point (if only you knew their studios... Let me guess, you don't even live in LA...)

I just completed a larger project on mine. Granted, I used a slave to host the VI's


Which means your laptop alone was not capable of handling the entire load. Not that I expect you to realize that you've actually proved my point.
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.
User avatar
papi61
Member
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:56 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby uarte » Mon Jan 06, 2014 2:51 pm

Hi Papi,

I've decided to jump back into this thread in a genuine bid to try to understand your point(s) and share my point(s) as simply and clearly as possible. This attempt may go nowhere, but I truly hope I can get to the bottom of what you're trying to say, without any personal criticisms. Just your point(s) on their merits alone and my point(s) on their merits alone.

I'll leave my source material for your comments just to this thread. Please feel free to clarify on your point(s).

1) You say that "no serious soundtrack composer would use a laptop as his master machine"

My response: That's your opinion. I disagree. There are plenty of "serious" soundtrack composers who would or could use a laptop as their master machine if they wanted to. But more to the point and in a larger context, a modern high-end laptop -- for example, a high-end DAW laptop from the likes of ADK (I own one and can vouch for them) and a high end laptop from Apple (I also own one) are both more than capable of being a primary front-end for a "serious" soundtrack composer, not to mention for many other pro audio purposes, such as post production, sound design, mixing, mastering, composing in general, and any number of other pro audio applications. And I should add that not everyone in this forum or who uses Cubase in general is interested in being a soundtrack composer -- there are plenty of people here that are pros or have pro aspirations who do plenty of professional work on laptops and on computers far less powerful than current-gen high-end laptops.

2) You say, "Logic Pro is the only valid reason to use a mac, for anyone who just starts."

My response: This is simply incorrect. Logic Pro is of course not the "only valid reason" to use a mac, not to mention macs are not just "for anyone who just starts." Not sure where to begin on that one. But I'll simply start with this fact: a major "valid" reason why people choose one platform or another is simply personal preference. 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 is one of my main points of prior posts in this and other threads.

Additionally, a recent-gen Mac with a quad-core CPU or better is perfectly capable of running professional audio applications and generating professional results. It's suited for many levels of music production task, from beginner to seasoned pro, in any genre and professional submarket of the music and audio industry. Likewise, you can easily find Windows computers that are also suited for the same tasks. Either platform is capable of any number of pro audio, amateur audio, and beginner audio tasks.

Beyond personal preference and capacity to handle most any type of pro audio task, there are many other "valid" reasons why one person might choose one platform or the other:

a) easier compatibility with friends, collaborators or clients
b) TCO - total cost of ownership (this can be complex calculation that goes far beyond a single computer)
c) business requirements
d) contractual reasons
e) support contracts
f) familiarity of specific hardware/software
g) requirement to use a specific piece of hardware or software
h) client preferences or even client requirements
i) availability
j) pre-existing software/hardware infrastructure investment
k) project workflow
l) performance of a specific application or plugin
m) etc....

3) You say that a "macbook is a consumer-grade machine that would never ever pass military standard testing, like most business laptops do."

My response: Assuming you are referring to a MacBook Pro, not an old MacBook, your point is irrelevant. Military testing is not required, and in fact "most" business laptops are in fact NOT military tested. Some are, but definitely not "most." In any case, a current-gen MacBook Pro is more than capable of producing professional results, and, speaking from experience of owning many business laptops, the current MacBook Pros are built very well, and perfectly capable of handling the rigors of day-in day-out professional use. "Military standard testing" is of course not required. There are also plenty of Windows machines that do not have "military standard testing" that are also perfectly well suited for professional music production. I can personally vouch for ADK computers, for example, which are NOT military tested the last time I checked, and they are some of the best pro audio Windows laptops in the industry. And I can also personally verify that while very well built, the ADK laptops are not as well built or as well designed as my MacBook Pro. However, in either case, I'd be happy to use either machine for professional audio work.

4) You say that "There's nothing you can do to improve a mac....You cannot tweak a mac because Apple won't let you."

My response: That is incorrect. There are plenty of things you can do to both improve and tweak a mac, and also customize and configure them in many ways, besides the obvious hardware and software additions. Of course, you can tweak and customize Windows computers far more than Macs, since you have easy access to the BIOS of PC motherboards, but your statement is very misleading. OSX is a modern POSIX-compliant operating system built on Unix, as I'm sure you know, and there are numerous under-the-hood tweaks you can make to services and features running on Macs that are not that different than changes you can make to Windows machines. In fact, if you have a strong Unix/Linux background, there are plenty of things you can do on OSX under the hood that are very fascinating indeed. But even on a simple level, there are several minor tweaks I use on my Macs that are helpful for DAW use, from disabling Spotlight, disabling FileVault, changing the power profile, hiding alternate boot volumes with fstab, etc. Those types of tweaks are actually similar in principle to simple tweaks I also do to my Windows machines. But beyond that, there is a whole community of Mac Pro users who have been using different EFI firmware on their Mac Pros, for example, so they can upgrade their CPUs to a newer generation of CPUs, etc. I've personally tested this, and was able to increase memory speed and CPU support. There is a community of users who have modified graphics firmware, motherboard firmware, tweaked drivers extensively, not to mention an entire community of people who support Hackintoshes so you can run OSX on an even wider variety of custom hardware if you want to. And on top of all that, Macs run Windows very well via Boot Camp or Parallels Desktop, etc. The number of things you can actually do to a Mac and with OSX in general is pretty impressive. Multi-booting on a Mac with Windows, OSX and Linux is quite easy to do, which opens up other interesting doors as well.

5) You say, "plugin count isn't everything (granted, it depends on how you work...)"

My response: agreed. :)

6) You say, speaking of James Horner, Trevor Rabin and James Newton Howard using Macs, that "They use mac because they're old and not very tech-savvy and they can't get accustomed to another OS."

My response: I can't speak for James Horner, Trevor Rabin and James Newton Howard, but I think you can't speak for them either. Maybe they are old. Maybe they are not very tech-savvy. Maybe they can't get accustomed to another OS. Maybe not. Maybe they just like using Macs? In any case, they are professionals using Macs and doing fine, which simply supports the fact that there are plenty of pros of a high order that use Macs for this specific class of work... not to mention there are many other pro audio tasks done on both Macs and Windows that have nothing to do with film scoring. The post production industry in the US is dominated by Pro Tools, mostly running on Macs, in my experience, as I am sure you know. We could talk for hours about various sub segments of various entertainment industry professionals that use Macs in large majority to Windows. In any case, the platform is irrelevant to the level of work produced. Users of both platforms are limited only by their own skills and talents.

My general position is that the platform wars are over. It's no longer relevant what platform you are running on, other than mainly workflow and personal/business preferences. Whatever works best for you and your unique situation. Performance is of course better on Windows -- as I have stated before, you will of course get more bang for the buck on Windows. I have never argued otherwise. But the delta between Windows and Mac performance is smaller than ever, based on tests I have run myself, 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, so it is not the headline issue it once was. There is no need to battle it out with Mac vs Windows, in my view. The two platforms can and do co-exist perfectly happily in the same studios where professional work is being done and paid for. And thank heavens for VE Pro, which makes working with both platforms better than ever.
uarte
Member
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:51 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby papi61 » Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:59 pm

uarte wrote:
1) You say that "no serious soundtrack composer would use a laptop as his master machine"

My response: That's your opinion. I disagree.


OK, then please quote ONE major soundtrack composer in LA who works on a laptop on nothing but a laptop. I know pretty much all of them and all of their studios.

There are plenty of "serious" soundtrack composers who would or could use a laptop as their master machine


Well, they don't. And if they have to use it as a master machine, it implies that the laptop isn't capable of handling an entire soundtrack and needs at least a slave. Which proves my point. But then again, a SERIOUS DAW machine has at least three internal large-capacity drives, which kinda excludes laptops. Also, mobile processors aren't as fast as desktop CPU's.

2) You say, "Logic Pro is the only valid reason to use a mac, for anyone who just starts."

My response: This is simply incorrect. Logic Pro is of course not the "only valid reason" to use a mac, not to mention macs are not just "for anyone who just starts." Not sure where to begin on that one. But I'll simply start with this fact: a major "valid" reason why people choose one platform or another is simply personal preference. 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 is one of my main points of prior posts in this and other threads.


Why would anyone want to deliberately use an overpriced and underperforming machine that can't even be overclocked? Allegiance to a cult is the only explanation. "I've got to use a mac because that's what celebrities use! And I want to be just as cool!" Yeah, that explains it...

Additionally, a recent-gen Mac with a quad-core CPU or better is perfectly capable of running professional audio applications and generating professional results.


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.

there are many other "valid" reasons why one person might choose one platform or the other:

a) easier compatibility with friends, collaborators or clients
b) TCO - total cost of ownership (this can be complex calculation that goes far beyond a single computer)
c) business requirements
d) contractual reasons
e) support contracts
f) familiarity of specific hardware/software
g) requirement to use a specific piece of hardware or software
h) client preferences or even client requirements
i) availability
j) pre-existing software/hardware infrastructure investment
k) project workflow
l) performance of a specific application or plugin
m) etc....


a) again, it goes back to using Logic. Because files from other DAW's are perfectly cross-compatible.
b) yeah, that's the typical fanboy argument who believes that Apple machines actually cost less. It makes absolutely no sense.
c) such as?
d) such as?
e) another fanboy myth. If you buy a BUSINESS windows machine, it likely comes with an EVEN BETTER WARRANTY than what Apple gives you. My HP laptop came with a 3-year on site warranty. It's an extra $350 if you want that with a MBP.

3) You say that a "macbook is a consumer-grade machine that would never ever pass military standard testing, like most business laptops do."

My response: Assuming you are referring to a MacBook Pro, not an old MacBook, your point is irrelevant.


It's not irrelevant at all. I can drop my HP Elitebook three feet on a hard surface and it won't break. And if it does, HP will give me a brand new one. Now try that with your MBP and then tell again that it's irrelevant...

MacBook Pros are built very well, and perfectly capable of handling the rigors of day-in day-out professional use. "Military standard testing" is of course not required.


Not by you maybe, but if I accidentally drop my laptop, I'm happy to know that nothing broke inside. No such luck with a MBP. To you it might be irrelevant, but that's because all fanboys see Apple's shortcomings as "features"...

There are also plenty of Windows machines that do not have "military standard testing"


Now THIS is a truly irrelevant point. Because when you get a windows machine, you can CHOOSE to buy one that is rugged enough. Again, with a Mac you have no choice. But if you are a devoted member of the Apple cult, then you always try to rationalize Apple's shortcomings as something that isn't really need. Until Apple decides to copy from other manufacturers. In that case not only that feature automatically becomes of vital importance, but Apple invented it...

the ADK laptops are not as well built or as well designed as my MacBook Pro.


Subjective fanboy statement, which you cannot support with anything objective.


4) You say that "There's nothing you can do to improve a mac....You cannot tweak a mac because Apple won't let you."

My response: That is incorrect. There are plenty of things you can do to both improve and tweak a mac


Minor and largely useless. The truth is, you can't even overclock a mac. And that's the kind of MAJOR tweak that actually makes a difference.

And on top of all that, Macs run Windows very well via Boot Camp


Yeah, that's the ONLY tweak that can bring dramatic improvements. And that totally proves my point.

5) You say, "plugin count isn't everything (granted, it depends on how you work...)"


Well, if we're talking about soundtracks and orchestral mockups in general, then plugin count is quite important.

6) You say, speaking of James Horner, Trevor Rabin and James Newton Howard using Macs, that "They use mac because they're old and not very tech-savvy and they can't get accustomed to another OS."

My response: I can't speak for James Horner, Trevor Rabin and James Newton Howard, but I think you can't speak for them either.


And you're wrong there, since I know these people.

In any case, they are professionals using Macs and doing fine, which simply supports the fact that there are plenty of pros of a high order that use Macs for this specific class of work...


Again, they ALL use PC slaves, which once again proves my point.

The post production industry in the US is dominated by Pro Tools, mostly running on Macs, in my experience, as I am sure you know. We could talk for hours about various sub segments of various entertainment industry professionals that use Macs in large majority to Windows. In any case, the platform is irrelevant to the level of work produced. Users of both platforms are limited only by their own skills and talents.


Again, for the reasons I mentioned before. Studios don't change computers every year and many still use MacPro's from circa 2006. In a decade or so, things will be completely different. 10 years ago, we were all using macs (myself included), if you have to change a machine today, you'd be hard-pressed to get a mac. And the new MacPro makes this choice even more absurd, as it's a computer designed exclusively for 4k video editing. Why would anyone want to buy a machine with monster GPU's (which you don't need) that has no PCIe ports? Again, the answer is the same: rationalization and being a member of the cult. But most real pros aren't cultists and that's why they won't keep buying MacPro's.

My general position is that the platform wars are over.


I don't think so. Apple cultism is very much alive, and that's what drives the "wars." I'm platform agnostic, I use what MAKES SENSE to use, and if tomorrow it made sense to switch to Linux or another OS, I would do it in a nanoseconds, no regrets and no second thoughts.

It's no longer relevant what platform you are running on, other than mainly workflow and personal/business preferences.


Of course it's relevant, because the mac offers lousy performance for the price. You can say the price is irrelevant, but again, that's just rationalization driven by fanboysm.

Performance is of course better on Windows


And that's what my point was all about. It makes no sense to spend more money for less performance. And I'm sorry but deciding to work with an overpriced and under-performing machine just because you like Apple's icons better (or the styling of the case) makes absolutely no sense outside of fanboysm.

But the delta between Windows and Mac performance is smaller than ever, based on tests I have run myself, 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


Yeah, that's what you read on "cult of mac", but it's complete BS. Because it assumes that all PC's are cheap machines that break down after 6 months. In TRUTH a PC can be anything you want, and since you can SELECT your own components, you can buy much better ones that what Apple tells you it's the best (but it isn't...)

And thank heavens for VE Pro, which makes working with both platforms better than ever.


VEP runs MUCH better on windows. But hey, I'm sure you accept a performance penalty because Apple's icons are so pretty and the design of the case is so trendy... :roll:
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.
User avatar
papi61
Member
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:56 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby Svenne » Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:22 pm

uarte, forget about the rantings of religious fanatics like papi61. They are impossible to convince. No matter what arguments are put forth. The best way to deal with them is if everyone chose to ignore them. They thrive on siring up controversy, and have no interest what so ever to contribute anything valuable.

It was nice to finally see someone putting forth a sensible argument regarding the "platform war". I agree with just about everything you said. I do believe you are wrong in one case though:

uarte wrote:Performance is of course better on Windows

This is definitely untrue. Case in point, I recently did a series of test regarding the excruciatingly long loading times of projects with lots of VSTi's and mushrooming file sizes when saving, in CB7.5. All the reports were from Windows users and when I did the tests on my Mac, I got the flowing results.
Loading times:
The loading times are same on Windows and OSX. Neither performs better than the other.
File sizes:
The file sizes doubled. Nowhere near the 10x+ mushrooming reported by several Windows users. So, with this test OSX performed better than Windows.

This doesn't say that much in the whole scheme of things. If you were to make a thousand tests, you'd find that Windows outperforms OSX in some and that OSX outperforms Windows in others. None of this matter anyway.

The only thing that matters is how fast and easy you can work, and that has very little to with numbers and everything to do with what you feel comfortable using! Personally, if I'm forced to work in Windows, a task can take 3 to 4 (or even longer) times to perform compared to when I'm working in OSX. When I working in OSX, I feel that I'm working with the computer and in Windows, against the computer. That is simply because I'm used to OSX. I have friends that have the opposite view, but we still get along just fine.



So, to all you fanatics out there: Use the platform you feel comfortable with and don't bother your pretty little heads about what others are using. That's none of your business!

Why waste time ranting about something so useless, when you could use the time to make some good music instead. Or have you bought Cubase/Nuendo/WaveLab for some other reason?
Cubase 7.5.20 [64bit] + IC Pro, WaveLab Elements 8, Mac Pro 2.8GHz 8-core 8GB, 10.9.4 Mavericks, Firewire Audiofile (to be replaced)
Svenne
Member
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:29 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby uarte » Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:58 pm

papi61 wrote:
uarte wrote:
1) You say that "no serious soundtrack composer would use a laptop as his master machine"

My response: That's your opinion. I disagree.


OK, then please quote ONE major soundtrack composer in LA who works on a laptop on nothing but a laptop. I know pretty much all of them and all of their studios.



Your exact prior statement was "no serious soundtrack composer would use a laptop as his master machine" and I disagreed with that. I didn't say the words, "major soundtrack composer in LA" which you added in your reply to me. I am *not* trying to prove that any specific "major soundtrack composer in LA" is using "nothing but a laptop."

Talk about a subset of a subset of a subset!

Let's stay specifically on target on what has been stated. Again, your prior statement was "no serious soundtrack composer would use a laptop as his master machine" -- I'm just quoting you -- and to that I said that it was your opinion, and that I disagree. What's the problem with that? I am happy for you that you know "pretty much all of them and all of their studios" in LA, but that does not include the rest of the world, and certainly not all people who consider themselves "serious composers."

At best, you speak for a small segment of a small segment of a small segment of the market that uses DAW apps.

My larger point (and I will simply quote my prior statement, which you did not disprove) was that they "would or could use a laptop as their master machine if they wanted to. But more to the point and in a larger context, a modern high-end laptop -- for example, a high-end DAW laptop from the likes of ADK (I own one and can vouch for them) and a high end laptop from Apple (I also own one) are both more than capable of being a primary front-end for a "serious" soundtrack composer, not to mention for many other pro audio purposes, such as post production, sound design, mixing, mastering, composing in general, and any number of other pro audio applications. And I should add that not everyone in this forum or who uses Cubase in general is interested in being a soundtrack composer -- there are plenty of people here that are pros or have pro aspirations who do plenty of professional work on laptops and on computers far less powerful than current-gen high-end laptops."

papi61 wrote:
uarte wrote:
There are plenty of "serious" soundtrack composers who would or could use a laptop as their master machine


Well, they don't. And if they have to use it as a master machine, it implies that the laptop isn't capable of handling an entire soundtrack and needs at least a slave. Which proves my point. But then again, a SERIOUS DAW machine has at least three internal large-capacity drives, which kinda excludes laptops. Also, mobile processors aren't as fast as desktop CPU's.



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.

And I might add, that even in my own quote, I stated clearly that you could use a laptop AS THE MASTER, of course implying that a "serious" composer might also avail himself of slaved machines.

Additionally, I refer you back to the larger point I was making about pro audio tasks in general -- not just "serious composing" -- as being suitable for a high-end laptop.

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 who need access to large sample libraries. We're talking pro audio in general.

As far as mobile CPUs not being as powerful as desktop CPUs, of course they're not, I never said they were. However, the current generation of mobile CPUs are incredibly powerful, more than enough for serious pro audio applications of great complexity. If you use DAWbench -- the current defacto benchmark series for DAWs, which I'm sure you've tested, right? -- to compare a current generation Intel Core i7-4960HQ (4 cores, 2.6 GHz), you will get performance that is not too far off from a current Core i7-4770K. That's real-world performance, Papi, and that's pretty incredible for a mobile chip. The desktop CPU will still beat the mobile chip, but not by that much. Now, if we take a current generation Intel Core i7-4960HQ and compare it to a *prior* generation Ivy Bridge or Sandy Bridge desktop chip, that new shiny Intel Core i7-4960HQ will actually beat out the prior gen desktop CPUs unless you overclock those older, but still powerful desktop CPUs. Think about it for a second. How many scores were composed on a Sandy Bridge, let alone Nehalem-based machine? That shiny new Intel Core i7-4960HQ can actually perform pretty close to a 6-core Xeon Westmere CPU that has powered many big pro rigs. Not to mention, it will even hold its own against 8 cores of Xeon E5520 CPUs, which is extraordinary. Mobile CPUs have come a long, long way, and they can absolutely suffice for very complex pro audio needs. For your "major LA" composers that you know, perhaps not. But that's not what I said.

papi61 wrote:
uarte wrote:
2) You say, "Logic Pro is the only valid reason to use a mac, for anyone who just starts."

My response: This is simply incorrect. Logic Pro is of course not the "only valid reason" to use a mac, not to mention macs are not just "for anyone who just starts." Not sure where to begin on that one. But I'll simply start with this fact: a major "valid" reason why people choose one platform or another is simply personal preference. 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 is one of my main points of prior posts in this and other threads.


Why would anyone want to deliberately use an overpriced and underperforming machine that can't even be overclocked? Allegiance to a cult is the only explanation. "I've got to use a mac because that's what celebrities use! And I want to be just as cool!" Yeah, that explains it...



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."

Just because you can't understand why someone might have a personal preference, doesn't make those people cultists. I also listed several other reasons, which I'll address below --

papi61 wrote:
uarte wrote:
Additionally, a recent-gen Mac with a quad-core CPU or better is perfectly capable of running professional audio applications and generating professional results.


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, as I've repeatedly indicated that not everyone here is interested in being a major soundtrack composer, not to mention the legion of other pro audio uses for computers, from post production, sound design, etc.

As for people who use macs "generally don't have high requirements," that may very well be true compared to your "major soundtrack composers" which represent a small percentage of users, and not just a small subset of overall pro audio users. In any case, as I have mentioned in this and many other threads, I too use VE Pro when needed, and highly recommend it.

papi61 wrote:
uarte wrote:
there are many other "valid" reasons why one person might choose one platform or the other:

a) easier compatibility with friends, collaborators or clients
b) TCO - total cost of ownership (this can be complex calculation that goes far beyond a single computer)
c) business requirements
d) contractual reasons
e) support contracts
f) familiarity of specific hardware/software
g) requirement to use a specific piece of hardware or software
h) client preferences or even client requirements
i) availability
j) pre-existing software/hardware infrastructure investment
k) project workflow
l) performance of a specific application or plugin
m) etc....


a) again, it goes back to using Logic. Because files from other DAW's are perfectly cross-compatible.



No, it doesn't just go back to using Logic. I use both Windows and Macs, and there is no more simple session transfer than one that is done on the same platform with the same plugin library. Yes, sessions are generally cross-compatible to a large degree these days, but I have personally encountered numerous occasions where having the same platform was helpful and time-saving. You may feel otherwise, and that's fine. It's entirely possible that your Mac-based clients are more compatible with your Windows rig than mine. My situation is clearly different than yours, and I expect there are many people here with different situations that either of ours. My clients have benefited from me just having a Mac around, even before I started using it more and more for Pro Tools and now for Cubase. But to say DAWs are "perfectly cross-compatible" is incorrect, not to mention that it only has to do with Logic. It's not "perfect" by a long shot.


b) yeah, that's the typical fanboy argument who believes that Apple machines actually cost less. It makes absolutely no sense.


You utterly missed my point. I said, specifically, "there are many other "valid" reasons why one person might choose one platform or the other" -- this could apply to EITHER Windows on Mac users. I did not single out Mac users as using the reasons I listed. I also never said that Apple machines cost less. Please re-read my original comments.



c) such as?

d) such as?




Applies to c and d -- 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.



e) another fanboy myth. If you buy a BUSINESS windows machine, it likely comes with an EVEN BETTER WARRANTY than what Apple gives you. My HP laptop came with a 3-year on site warranty. It's an extra $350 if you want that with a MBP.



I'm referring to something else -- some corporate video production departments, for example, have IT support contracts that specify certain hardware/software, so this becomes a built-in bias for the company to use or NOT use specific hardware. 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. Again, a rare occurrence, but it is still a valid reason why someone chooses one platform over another.

re: on-site warranties, I'm not debating that. Yes, enterprise-class laptops from Dell, HP, etc., will have 3-year warranties. I have several machines myself, and those warranties have come in handy. In the case of the Dell workstations I've purchased over the years, they have on-site warranties, but, I had to pay for those too. They are, in fact, not free, even though they may say that on the website. 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. I have done that with a Dell Precision laptop.

papi61 wrote:
uarte wrote:
3) You say that a "macbook is a consumer-grade machine that would never ever pass military standard testing, like most business laptops do."

My response: Assuming you are referring to a MacBook Pro, not an old MacBook, your point is irrelevant.


It's not irrelevant at all. I can drop my HP Elitebook three feet on a hard surface and it won't break. And if it does, HP will give me a brand new one. Now try that with your MBP and then tell again that it's irrelevant...



papi61 wrote:
uarte wrote:
MacBook Pros are built very well, and perfectly capable of handling the rigors of day-in day-out professional use. "Military standard testing" is of course not required.



Not by you maybe, but if I accidentally drop my laptop, I'm happy to know that nothing broke inside. No such luck with a MBP. To you it might be irrelevant, but that's because all fanboys see Apple's shortcomings as "features"...

There are also plenty of Windows machines that do not have "military standard testing"


Now THIS is a truly irrelevant point. Because when you get a windows machine, you can CHOOSE to buy one that is rugged enough. Again, with a Mac you have no choice. But if you are a devoted member of the Apple cult, then you always try to rationalize Apple's shortcomings as something that isn't really need. Until Apple decides to copy from other manufacturers. In that case not only that feature automatically becomes of vital importance, but Apple invented it...



Again, 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".

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. 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.

I will contend that "military standard testing" is simply not needed for the vast majority of users. However, the fact that no Macs are military tested is a good point though, and certainly, if someone needs that level of testing, they should buy a suitable machine for the job.

papi61 wrote:
uarte wrote:
the ADK laptops are not as well built or as well designed as my MacBook Pro.



Subjective fanboy statement, which you cannot support with anything objective.



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, including screen, keyboard, case, fit and finish, to the ADK laptop I own. Granted, I don't have the latest ADK model, and it's possible they have changed OEM suppliers, but from their website, they look like they have the same suppliers. Nothing bad though. Having said that, again, both are professional and I would trust them (and have trusted them) for heavy use. I think if you handle both of these laptops, it would be hard for you disagree with me.

papi61 wrote:
uarte wrote:
4) You say that "There's nothing you can do to improve a mac....You cannot tweak a mac because Apple won't let you."

My response: That is incorrect. There are plenty of things you can do to both improve and tweak a mac



Minor and largely useless. The truth is, you can't even overclock a mac. And that's the kind of MAJOR tweak that actually makes a difference.



While you may choose to be dismissive, you are incorrect with your assessment of how tweakable Macs are. 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.

papi61 wrote:
uarte wrote:
And on top of all that, Macs run Windows very well via Boot Camp


Yeah, that's the ONLY tweak that can bring dramatic improvements. And that totally proves my point.



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.

I never said you can tweak Macs as MUCH as a Windows machine, but to state that there's nothing you can do is just incorrect. And yes, it's nice to be able to run Windows natively on Apple hardware. Sure, why not, when needed? That's not a criticism. That's a feature. Some might even call that a benefit. While you may view that as the only tweak that matters on a Mac, it's just one of many benefits. Again, I'm not saying that Macs are more tweakable than Windows. 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. So if you look at it that way, OSX will run on all sorts of very "tweakable" hardware if you want to.


papi61 wrote:
uarte wrote:
5) You say, "plugin count isn't everything (granted, it depends on how you work...)"


Well, if we're talking about soundtracks and orchestral mockups in general, then plugin count is quite important.



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.

papi61 wrote:
uarte wrote:
6) You say, speaking of James Horner, Trevor Rabin and James Newton Howard using Macs, that "They use mac because they're old and not very tech-savvy and they can't get accustomed to another OS."

My response: I can't speak for James Horner, Trevor Rabin and James Newton Howard, but I think you can't speak for them either.


And you're wrong there, since I know these people.



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.

papi61 wrote:
uarte wrote:
In any case, they are professionals using Macs and doing fine, which simply supports the fact that there are plenty of pros of a high order that use Macs for this specific class of work...


Again, they ALL use PC slaves, which once again proves my point.



That's perfectly fine. I haven't once said not to run PC slaves. I myself have used VE Pro on Windows with two Windows slaves and I was happy with it. If your point is that people use Windows computers professionally, I am not arguing that point. If your point is that people get great performance from their Windows machines, I'm also not arguing against that. Your point is made. 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."

papi61 wrote:
uarte wrote:
The post production industry in the US is dominated by Pro Tools, mostly running on Macs, in my experience, as I am sure you know. We could talk for hours about various sub segments of various entertainment industry professionals that use Macs in large majority to Windows. In any case, the platform is irrelevant to the level of work produced. Users of both platforms are limited only by their own skills and talents.


Again, for the reasons I mentioned before. Studios don't change computers every year and many still use MacPro's from circa 2006. In a decade or so, things will be completely different. 10 years ago, we were all using macs (myself included), if you have to change a machine today, you'd be hard-pressed to get a mac. And the new MacPro makes this choice even more absurd, as it's a computer designed exclusively for 4k video editing. Why would anyone want to buy a machine with monster GPU's (which you don't need) that has no PCIe ports? Again, the answer is the same: rationalization and being a member of the cult. But most real pros aren't cultists and that's why they won't keep buying MacPro's.



So what if studios don't change computers that often? In this point I'm making here, I'm simply stating that the majority of US post houses DO use Pro Tools on Macs. And that there are many pros in the broader entertainment industry that do use them -- for whatever reason. The point is that Macs are currently being used professionally, and a lot of them. Of course, Windows computers are also being used professionally. The platform does not dictate the quality of output.

I also didn't even bother bringing up the new Mac Pro. The times I have in other threads I have strictly indicated that its use is for GPU bound needs. So of course that machine is not designed specifically for Pro Audio, since DSP for plugins on GPUs is still a long way off, so I'm also not recommending DAW users jump on the new Mac Pros unless they need the video capabilities. Please don't lump other people's comments in this thread on my point of view.


papi61 wrote:
uarte wrote:
My general position is that the platform wars are over.


I don't think so. Apple cultism is very much alive, and that's what drives the "wars." I'm platform agnostic, I use what MAKES SENSE to use, and if tomorrow it made sense to switch to Linux or another OS, I would do it in a nanoseconds, no regrets and no second thoughts.



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. Things simply "make sense" differently to them. Personally, I prefer to work on Macs now, after many years working mainly on Windows. But what "makes sense" to me is not something I feel the need to "impose" on anyone else. Each person should use what works best for them.

papi61 wrote:
uarte wrote:
It's no longer relevant what platform you are running on, other than mainly workflow and personal/business preferences.


Of course it's relevant, because the mac offers lousy performance for the price. You can say the price is irrelevant, but again, that's just rationalization driven by fanboysm.



Obviously, I disagree with your reply. I ran the numbers for my own studio, and the difference is minimal in my case, and the benefits I have are worth the minor difference of budget for the clients I have. I didn't need someone else to tell me what I should or should not run in my studio, as I wouldn't tell you what you should or shouldn't run in your studio. Only you know the types of projects you run, and you have calculated what works best for you. Go for it, of course. For the types of projects I do and the paying clients I have, this setup appears to be working well for me, and keep in mind I still have Windows machines and VE Pro as needed, so I'm not an all-Mac shop. I also have a few Linux machines as file servers, and I'll use whatever the best tools I can to get the job done.

papi61 wrote:
uarte wrote:Performance is of course better on Windows


And that's what my point was all about. It makes no sense to spend more money for less performance. And I'm sorry but deciding to work with an overpriced and under-performing machine just because you like Apple's icons better (or the styling of the case) makes absolutely no sense outside of fanboysm.



Sure it makes sense for some people to use Macs -- even if you personally consider them overpriced and under-performing. To suggest that the only reason why it "makes sense" to them is because they like Apple's icons better is simply missing all the other points I have made. If the other statements I've made simply boil down to preference for Apple icons, 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. :)

papi61 wrote:
uarte wrote:But the delta between Windows and Mac performance is smaller than ever, based on tests I have run myself, 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


Yeah, that's what you read on "cult of mac", but it's complete BS. Because it assumes that all PC's are cheap machines that break down after 6 months. In TRUTH a PC can be anything you want, and since you can SELECT your own components, you can buy much better ones that what Apple tells you it's the best (but it isn't...)



Not sure what you are referring to. I am not familiar with "cult of mac," if you are referring to some website or article. I have not stated that Macs perform BETTER than Windows machines, and I have not stated that you can't select your own components when building a quality Windows DAW. On the contrary. I've built plenty of Windows DAWs myself and they worked great.

What I'm referring to is DAWBench, which is a suite of DAW-related benchmarks that you can run on various DAW apps that give you a great yardstick to measure performance of your DAW, be it Pro Tools on Macs or Cubase on Windows, etc... Just google TAFKAT and DAWbench and you'll see what I'm talking about. Those benchmarks, which I have run myself on current machines with current versions of DAW apps, are what I look at and trust, along with my own test projects -- so I don't rely on someone else's numbers, speculations or opinions. And I have tested a variety of DAWs and both OSX and Windows, not to mention all my computers, which are many and varied. 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.

In my view, the platform war is over, since the delta is reasonable, and within the margin of current gen CPU differences. Yes, you can get more mileage out of a similar-speced Windows machine... but not that much. The delta used to be 50% or more, sometimes 100% difference in the past, even worse. But in my tests on recent machines and the latest DAW apps, I'm seeing about 20%-30% max or so Windows improvement compared to Macs at average latencies for the applications and plugins I use on similar hardware. That's not earth-shaking, and well within CPU generation margins. When you couple that with other workflow and preference issues in a studio, there is no longer a *major* cost/performance benefit to Windows. Yes, it's still there, but if you make a living doing this, you'll be spending a heck of a lot more money on plugins, libraries, other studio hardware, general business expenses, etc., than the difference between a decent Mac and a decent Windows machine for pro audio.
uarte
Member
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:51 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby uarte » Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:09 pm

@Svenne -- Normally I'd agree with you about the whole idea of not responding, but I really wanted to take a stab at communicating with Papi again, and try to understanding him and see if he could see my point of view, as futile as that may be. I still hold out hope that he and I can actually understand each other, although I'll admit the chances are rather low.

As for wasting time responding, I did "check out" of this thread once already, and when I came back to the forum to catch up on news, I really, genuinely wanted to give it another good effort, without any name-calling. Yes, I could have spent my time doing something more productive and part of me is a little embarrassed for participating in this spectacle of a thread.

Anyway, re: your comments about performance, there are a lot of metrics we can look at to see what platform performs better, and I'll admit, I never looked at loading times. That something to think about. Re: DSP benchmark, i.e.: total plugin load, etc., I refer to DAWbench to help clarify, and I use a cross-platform test project with FabFilter plugins and other goodies. Windows always comes out on top for me... but not by that much that it really makes a difference in day-to-day business. So to me, it truly boils down to that day-in day-out workflow and personal preference issue and just plain getting the job done... and for that, I prefer using Macs... So in that most important area of personal preference and workflow, I'm sure we completely agree.
uarte
Member
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:51 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby Svenne » Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:00 am

uarte, I did not criticize you attempt at communicating with papi61. However, this discussion could have been a help to users who were thinking of migrating. Instead it has become a forum for trolls* that have absolutely no interest what so ever in being helpful. Only in spreading myths, misinformation and insults. It's nice to see that you've begun to see the futility in trying to reason with such persons. I think you'd have better luck trying to forge a peace agreement between the US and Al Kaida (I'm not sure about the spelling).

Unfortunately, they are more than a nuisance. They have wrecked several useful discussions, by making the moderators lock them.

* Just to be clear. I don't call you a troll. You argue with facts, not myths.

If you're interested in the problem with long loading times in Cubase 7.5, you'll find a discussion here:
viewtopic.php?f=196&t=51381
Cubase 7.5.20 [64bit] + IC Pro, WaveLab Elements 8, Mac Pro 2.8GHz 8-core 8GB, 10.9.4 Mavericks, Firewire Audiofile (to be replaced)
Svenne
Member
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:29 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby uarte » Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:27 am

Thanks for the feedback, Svenne. Normally I try to avoid these types of exchanges, although I get sucked into them from time to time. :)

With Papi61, I decided to give it a shot, despite my initial interaction with him earlier in the thread. I have read other posts of his in other threads that were helpful and insightful, so I thought perhaps there was potential to communicate with him on this topic. Let's see how (or if) he responds, maybe we'll be building a bridge of some kind after all? Or not?

Also, thanks for pointing out the load time issue, something I haven't paid attention to.

In any case, I agree that this could have been a much more helpful thread, and for my part, I doubt I'll be interacting like this much in the future. I'm ahead on deadlines today and had a little too much extra time on my hands... :shock:
uarte
Member
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:51 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby papi61 » Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:22 am

Svenne wrote:Instead it has become a forum for trolls* that have absolutely no interest what so ever in being helpful. Only in spreading myths, misinformation and insults.


Very funny how you are exactly what you accuse me of. I help a lot on this forum, I don't spread myths and misinformation (and I challenge you to prove your mendacious assertion) and most of all I haven't insulted anyone like you just did with me.
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.
User avatar
papi61
Member
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:56 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby papi61 » Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:21 am

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.
Last edited by papi61 on Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
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.
User avatar
papi61
Member
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:56 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby zephonic » Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:27 am

Some people never learn.....

Image
Cubase 6.5.3 - Halion 5 - HalionSonic 2 - assorted plugins/instruments
2009 MacPro 2.66 quad (12GB RAM) on 10.8.5
Avid Mbox3Pro
iPad4 - Cubase iC Pro
zephonic
Junior Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:49 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby papi61 » Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:34 am

zephonic wrote:Some people never learn.....


That is the very definition of a troll post: off-topic, ad hominem and only meant to insult someone who has a different opinion. My post above, on the other hand, is completely on-topic and helpful, because it deals with the differences between mac and PC and how in my opinion macs aren't worth buying (with supported evidence.)

But then again, it's not like you can actually debate me on the technical points. At least uarte TRIED to do that, albeit unsuccessfully. And yet sadly, only after covering me with invectives in his previous post.
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.
User avatar
papi61
Member
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:56 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby Freddie H » Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:00 pm

I know many going to be angry on me by saing this but actual Papi is 100% right here.


Those that say or state that APPLE and OSX has better performance then Windows are delusional or are the "ones" that spreading false information here.


To be completely honest. As it is today, Apple and MAC comes only with setbacks, no real benefits.
That's why I think we all will see a big turn in very near future, that less music application will continue to support it.

I think soon both Steinberg , AVID Pro Tools, DP, NI and many other manufactories will just drop apple support.
It just takes time and away valuable resources for the programmers trying to add OSX support for it with clearly no great impact or any kind of benefits.

That's the real raw truth, even if you like or not! :|


Best Regards
Freddie
Last edited by Freddie H on Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
User avatar
Freddie H
Member
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:59 am
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 71 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby Svenne » Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:04 pm

Nice. Both the biggest trolls gather in the same place.
Cubase 7.5.20 [64bit] + IC Pro, WaveLab Elements 8, Mac Pro 2.8GHz 8-core 8GB, 10.9.4 Mavericks, Firewire Audiofile (to be replaced)
Svenne
Member
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:29 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby Freddie H » Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:07 pm

Svenne wrote:Nice. Both the biggest trolls gather in the same place.


No Svenne, I'm not trying to bash anything. :) Make a search at google and open your eyes you would know it too.
Ask Steinberg "the programmers" or the "tech nods" at Steinberg how good OSX perform with audio or DAWs plugins etc. Anyone that knows anything about this will confirm what I'm saying.


Best regards
Freddie
-Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
User avatar
Freddie H
Member
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:59 am
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 71 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby Steve Helstrip » Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:56 pm

papi61 wrote:
Mirco Zappaterra wrote:HI GUYS ...
after so many usage mac osx I'm thinking of upgrading to Win 7 64 bit.
prices of apple in value performance no longer justifies the cost of a mac ... :?
I ask you of the forum .... :roll:
Tips for a daw with cubase 7 on win 7 64 bit.
components, the stability of the system, your impressions ...
Help me
thanks :D


I did that about three years ago (Mac to PC.) Never regretted it for one second. It was like getting out of very heavy and expensive shackles and stepping into total freedom. Oh, and don't let anyone try to convince you that "pros only use macs." I'm a pro and I use Windows. So is Hans Zimmer, who also dumped all of his macs for custom-built PC's (and yeah, he's a major Cubase fan.)

For the record, I've never had a single OS crash on Win 7 and 8 and never had the tiniest shred of malware. And yes, my main desktop is connected to the internet (it would be a major hassle if it weren't...)

IMHO now that Windows is just as rock-solid as OSX and malware is no longer a concern (if you know what to avoid on the net..., but that also applies to macs nowadays) there is absolutely no reason to spend more money on a mac (or get a lesser computer for the same money), especially if you use Cubase. Also, most common-platform software runs more efficiently on Windows (Kontakt, Play, VEP, TotalMix FX etc.) and win machines averagely work with lower latencies than macs. So, why would you want a mac? So that people around you think you're "cool"? Reality check: the 1990's have been over in a while and Steve Jobs resides six feet under...

Finally, with a Windows DAW you can build your machine (or have it built) to YOUR EXACT SPECIFICATIONS and you don't need to accept whatever Apple thinks it's best for you (and guess what, macs aren't specifically designed to make music.) That also means you can buy the VERY BEST COMPONENTS on the market and not what Apple would have you believe it's best (Apple has HUGE profit margins, which means they don't use the very best components. Just slightly better than average.)


@papi For a 'pro' you seem to spend an awful lot of time getting people's backs up on this forum. Go make some music!
Mac Pro i7, 12Gb, OSX10.9 MacBook Pro i7, 4Gb, OSX10.9
Cubase 7.5.20
Vienna Ensemble Pro 5.

http://www.thethrillseekers.co.uk
http://www.twitter.com/stevehelstrip
http://www.facebook.com/thrillseekersofficial
User avatar
Steve Helstrip
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:23 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby Steve Helstrip » Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:10 pm

Svenne wrote:uarte, forget about the rantings of religious fanatics like papi61. They are impossible to convince. No matter what arguments are put forth. The best way to deal with them is if everyone chose to ignore them. They thrive on siring up controversy, and have no interest what so ever to contribute anything valuable.



Well said.
Mac Pro i7, 12Gb, OSX10.9 MacBook Pro i7, 4Gb, OSX10.9
Cubase 7.5.20
Vienna Ensemble Pro 5.

http://www.thethrillseekers.co.uk
http://www.twitter.com/stevehelstrip
http://www.facebook.com/thrillseekersofficial
User avatar
Steve Helstrip
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:23 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby uarte » Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:50 pm

Hi Papi61,

Well, it looks like you and I won't be agreeing on too many topics any time soon, although perhaps we did at least begin to understand each other. :) If we compare notes, there are actually many areas where we do agree, but some things clearly got lost in between the cracks. Anyway, I want to sincerely thank you for your responses. I wish we could have come to a better understanding of each other, though.

A handful of thoughts about our exchange:

First, I want to apologize for some of my wording in my initial exchange with you back on the middle of page 4 somewhere. I used words like "insane", "asinine", "ignorant", "trite", and "irrational" in my reply to your earlier statements. I could have and should have been more professional. I withdraw those negative words, and apologize to you for using them. Whether or not I agreed with your comments (which I obviously didn't), this forum really should be a better place, and that was definitely not one of my best moments here. I will not use such language in this forum again.

I decided, sincerely, to come back to this thread in a genuine bid to try to understand your points and share my points as simply as possible... sort of an experiment of forum communications, and I think we accomplished that to some degree, although at the expense of spending way, way too much time! ;) But our more recent (and lengthy) exchange did result in some degree of clarity one way or another. Was the time and effort worth it? I'll keep my own answer to myself on that one. :)

Here's what I got out of it:

I think I understand your key points, which basically include the following long list. I agree with many of these, and always have agreed with many of these. I also disagree with many of them, but I don't think going back and forth on them any more will be useful. In any case, this is what I have gathered that you believe. Keep in mind I'm using direct quotes here, and I am not extrapolating, guessing, or making assumptions or inferences about what you believe. These are direct quotes from you. If you want to amend/revise any of them, that's obviously your choice. I've decided to not argue or agree on individual points below since I've already stated my points of view in the prior exchanges for anyone to look at. So, here's what I understand that you believe from your own words:

- You believe "no serious soundtrack composer would use a laptop as his master machine" and that anyone using a laptop will need a slave for serious soundtrack composing.

- You believe "people who use macs generally don't have high requirements."

- You believe "virtually every kid with a computer considers himself a genius, an artist and a serious professional."

- You believe it doesn't make sense for anyone to "spend more money to get less performance," and additionally, you said, "Why would anyone want to deliberately use an overpriced and underperforming machine that can't even be overclocked? Allegiance to a cult is the only explanation."

- You believe that "fanboysm is so deleterious that people prefer to accept compromises and spend more money just to be part of the cult"

- You believe that people "buy Apple products, because they're convinced that these products are so superior, their excessive price is justified. And they rationalize that 24/7."

- You believe that "lots of Apple cultists use windows computers at work" because corporate IT departments force them to.

- You believe that "buying the new MacPro for audio is utterly insane."

- You believe "Most of the business laptops that cost as much as MBP's or more definitely have passed military certification"

- You believe that if my MBP were military certified, or "truly rugged, [I'd] be bragging about it."

- You believe "that (bootcamp) is the ONLY tweak that can bring dramatic improvements."

- You believe that since I agreed Windows performs better, that using Macs therefore is "an IRRATIONAL choice." You also believe "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." Furthermore, you believe that "deciding to work with an overpriced and under-performing machine just because you like Apple's icons better (or the styling of the case) makes absolutely no sense outside of fanboysm"

- You believe that "Logic Pro is the only valid reason to use a mac, for anyone who just starts" and that "it's highly irrational to want to spend more money to get less performance" and that Macs are "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.)"

- After much back and forth, you would revise your earlier statement of "There's nothing you can do to improve a mac....You cannot tweak a mac because Apple won't let you" to "Apple won't let you tweak their laptops to any *SIGNIFICANT* degree where the increase in performance would be dramatically noticeable."

- You feel you can speak for James Horner, Trevor Rabin and James Newton Howard because you "know these people" and that they use Macs because "they're old and not very tech-savvy and they can't get accustomed to another OS."

- You believe that "ten years ago I would totally agree with you that mac was the way to go for a professional" and "Now that there is no longer a difference and macs are actually under-performing, lots of new machines are becoming windows-based" and "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.)"

- You believe that, referring to people recommending buying a new Mac Pro, "the vast majority of people who buy into the mac cult do, even if it's blatantly absurd."

- You believe that "Cubase, Kontakt, VEP and other audio software run SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER on windows, and the evidence is everywhere"

- You believe that anyone who uses a "lesser machine that costs you more" has made an "irrational choice dictated by something different than trying to achieve the best results" and that it "makes no sense from the point of view of effectiveness and production per dollar spent."

- You believe 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"

- You believe "Microsoft ... has greatly worked to improve audio performance, and you can clearly see the difference between Windows 7 and 8.1"

- You believe "Apple cultism is very much alive, and that's what drives the 'wars.'"

- You believe that you "can criticize people's choices if they're based on sheer irrationality"

- You believe that you are "not insulting anyone here."

- You believe that I am a fanboy, and, "Like all fanboys, start every discussion from a point of view of prejudice."

- You believe that you "help a lot on this forum," that you "don't spread myths and misinformation" and "most of all" that you "haven't insulted anyone."

Naturally, I agree with many of your statements above, and also disagree with many others. I think we'll simply not be able to come to an agreement on many of them. But that's okay. :) The ones I disagree with I've already discussed in prior posts, so no need to rehash here (yet again), and anyone reading our exchanges can judge for themselves. We'll just have to disagree on some things, but that doesn't mean we can't be civil with each other.

In terms of the actual discussion, I feel like we have been talking passed each other to some degree. You have indicated that I have moved the goal posts in our discussion, but I also believe you have moved the goal posts many times, accusing me of straw man arguments, and altering a number of my statements to suit your point... here are a few examples:

- When I said "My clients have benefited from me just having a Mac around" you turned that into: "Of course, because most of your mac clients wouldn't even look at you, if you didn't have a mac" -- which of course I never said.

- When I said "As for people who use macs 'generally don't have high requirements,' that may very well be true compared to your 'major soundtrack composers'" you turned that into "...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!' " -- which of course I also never said.

- When I said "I also never said that Apple machines cost less. Please re-read my original comments." You turned that into "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" -- which I also never said.

- When I talked about TCO differences, and numbers that I have personally run for my own studio/business, you dismissed that and turned that into "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." -- again, something I never said. You also added, later, "how is it possible that OSX is suddenly 'king of the audio', without Apple having done anything about it?" Again, something I never said.

- When I disagreed with your statement when you said, "most business laptops pass military standard testing," you moved the goal posts again with "Most of the business laptops that cost as much as MBP's or more definitely have passed military certification." (I added the italics)

- When I disagreed with you about another specific statement you made, which was "no serious soundtrack composer would use a laptop as his master machine" you moved the goal post quite a bit by challenging me to "quote ONE major soundtrack composer in LA who works on a laptop on nothing but a laptop." That reply in particular shows how we are basically talking passed each other. You converted the words "serious soundtrack composer" into "major soundtrack composer in LA" and you converted the words "a laptop as his master machine" into "on a laptop on nothing but a laptop". Then you proceeded to dismiss my point, based on your new goalposts, as if I had been talking about "major soundtrack composers in LA" and "nothing but a laptop" all along.

In fact you dismissed the vast majority of my points... I'm not offended, but some of them really surprised me -- here is a little example that shows how we can't apparently stay in context on this discussion:

- When I said "Some pro audio users have specifications clauses in their contracts for what software and hardware they must use." You completely dismissed it as "Irrelevant, because you aren't talking about their PERSONAL machines. Lots of Apple cultists use windows computers at work for the same reason." I was simply supplying a reason why some pro audio users choose one platform over another. My point is still valid, and that IS one reason (of many) why some pro audio users choose one platform over another. But it's simply irrelevant to you. We had been discussing why some people choose one platform or another, and I gave several reasons... that's just one you threw out... however, that is actually a real reason why some people choose one platform or another that I have experienced myself... and I even specified it could be either Mac or Windows. And yet, even a logical, valid point like that, however minor, but that meets the specific sub-topic of the exchange, is quickly thrown out the door by you.

Another one which I was surprised at how you handled it was when I mentioned the difference between an ADK laptop build quality vs a MacBook Pro build quality. You utterly dismissed my comments without the slightest of consideration, with the words, "Subjective fanboy statement, which you cannot support with anything objective." Now, of course my comments about both laptops are subjective -- they are my subjective opinion... but they aren't made up fluff... they are informed opinions from someone who owns and uses both products, in hand. That has some relevance to a respectful forum discussion. When I provided direct personal experience with both machines that I own, which I have sitting here in front of me, which I have no reason to lie or exaggerate about, especially since it's frankly a minor point (and I was very complimentary about ADK as well), but then you utterly dismiss my comments while at the same time expecting me to swallow and accept the giant premise that you can speak for James Horner, Trevor Rabin and James Newton Howard because you "know these people" and that your level of expertise is so great that you "know pretty much all of them and all of their studios" in LA. And because you know so many people in LA, you must therefore be right on all your related points when we disagree.

In fact, it was that little exchange that made me realize that there would be no way of proving anything to you about anything you happen to disagree with, short of showing up at your studio bringing a truck-load of scientific equipment, calibrated by Hans Zimmer's own engineers, with a signed certification from all your composer friends in LA. And even then, you would possibly not concede any point or try to understand why I might think the way I do.

It is this type of exchange with you that I feel like we just won't see eye-to-eye on most topics about which we disagree, and even a basic lack of being able to clearly and effectively communicate with each other and stay on topic. And, well, that's just going to have to be okay. Life will of course go on. :)

You did sort of compromise on one point, though, for which maybe I should be grateful, which was: "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.'"

Anyway, I genuinely wish you the best, and there's not much more I can say, since apparently I have proven "all of your points" and my points about which we disagree are utterly irrelevant to you, especially since I and anyone else that disagrees with you are not qualified or believable in any of our comments.

In any case, I have no desire to exchange negative words with you. At the very least, I hope we can keep things civil moving forward, since we are both members of this community and both use Cubase, which I think we can both agree on is a great DAW application.

Best of luck,
uarte
Last edited by uarte on Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
uarte
Member
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:51 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby Svenne » Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:19 pm

Freddie H wrote:
Svenne wrote:Nice. Both the biggest trolls gather in the same place.


No Svenne, I'm not trying to bash anything. :) Make a search at google and open your eyes you would know it too.
Ask Steinberg "the programmers" or the "tech nods" at Steinberg how good OSX perform with audio or DAWs plugins etc. Anyone that knows anything about this will confirm what I'm saying.


Best regards
Freddie

Wikipedia wrote:In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

I can't come up with a more accurate description of your, and papi61's, activities on this forum, however hard I try. There's no need to refer to any particular postings. The proof is in all your inflammatory and insulting postings that litters this forum. Neither am I alone in becoming fed up with your antics.

On most serious forums, trolls are not tolerated and are banned. Well moderators, are they tolerated on this forum?
Cubase 7.5.20 [64bit] + IC Pro, WaveLab Elements 8, Mac Pro 2.8GHz 8-core 8GB, 10.9.4 Mavericks, Firewire Audiofile (to be replaced)
Svenne
Member
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:29 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby Freddie H » Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:47 pm

Svenne wrote:
Freddie H wrote:
Svenne wrote:Nice. Both the biggest trolls gather in the same place.


No Svenne, I'm not trying to bash anything. :) Make a search at google and open your eyes you would know it too.
Ask Steinberg "the programmers" or the "tech nods" at Steinberg how good OSX perform with audio or DAWs plugins etc. Anyone that knows anything about this will confirm what I'm saying.


Best regards
Freddie

Wikipedia wrote:In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

I can't come up with a more accurate description of your, and papi61's,activities on this forum, however hard I try. There's no need to refer to any particular postings. The proof is in all your inflammatory and insulting postings that litters this forum. Neither am I alone in becoming fed up with your antics.

On most serious forums, trolls are not tolerated and are banned. Well moderators, are they tolerated on this forum?



You have now directly insult me and others here by saying this. :(

I have not insult you or anyone else here or made any trolling in this or in any other threads.
Your conduct are clearly violation against Steinberg TOS.
You have been reported!
-Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
User avatar
Freddie H
Member
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:59 am
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 71 times

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Postby Fabio Bartolini » Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:05 pm

I'm temporarily locking the thread. Hopefully we'll find the time to remove the OT posts, polemics and personal attacks. Not the best time of the year to find some.
Freddie, the very long list of reports in this thread will be ignored - many have crossed the line, I'll just invite everyone to keep it civil.

[Edited: major typo]
Fabio Bartolini, Steinberg Tech Support
Steinberg Media Technologies GmbH
Hamburg, Germany

Check out Steinberg on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook!
User avatar
Fabio Bartolini
Moderator
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:55 am
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Previous

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Grim, ZeroZero and 7 guests