The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Tim Cook on Mac Desktop commitment Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 11th July 2017
  #1081
Lives for gear
 
lowkey's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
Don't have time at the moment, will get back later after you concede that a majority of deep pocketed Mac Pro users don't bother buying 5K monitors because they are pointless for most audio purposes.
I already quoted your quote, which was specific to replacing a 2014 27" iMac...which is a 5k monitor mate. Stop with the backtracking...
Old 11th July 2017
  #1082
Lives for gear
 

What a discussion

Michal
Old 11th July 2017
  #1083
Lives for gear
 
lowkey's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by msmucr View Post
What a discussion

Michal
but don't you want to save 66% on your computer
Old 11th July 2017
  #1084
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
Apple aren't a DAW manufacturer
You're misinformed. Apple manufactures 2 DAWs, Logic Pro X, and GarageBand.




Which other OS manufacturers also manufactures pro level DAWs? Meaning, they are capable of optimising OS and DAW for each other, out of the box?

Which other PC hardware manufacturers also manufacture pro level DAWs?


Spinning that a 'dedicated DAW computer' is somewhat advantageous over a computer that can do more than just run a DAW is admirable, but .


So is the totally new, unheard of point that you can buy a cheap piece of junk for less money than quality equipment - in all areas, not just computers.
Old 11th July 2017
  #1085
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
There's RAM speed + ECC though. Also memory intensive plugins in non-artificial situations where the cache is churned a lot. In artificial projects where all the important stuff gets cached, I can see why memory speed wouldn't make much of a measurable difference.
ECC or non ECC does not show a measurable difference.
This was tested in a real project with different samplers, different content (15GB loaded in RAM), all kinds of insert & send plugins. No DAWBENCH, NO difference.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
Spinning that a 'dedicated DAW computer' is somewhat advantageous over a computer that can do more than just run a DAW is admirable, but .
While I do not agree with a lot of what captain caveman said, the term "dedicated DAW computer" rather should be read as "PC which is optimized for DAWs but (usually) does all other kinds of stuff great as well".
It just sounds silly.
Old 11th July 2017
  #1086
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
While I do not agree with a lot of what captain caveman said, the term "dedicated DAW computer" rather should be read as "PC which is optimized for DAWs but (usually) does all other kinds of stuff great as well".
My reading was that it's about one of those machines that are not allowed on the Internet, because they're too fragile to handle anything apart from running a DAW...


On a Mac, there's no need whatsoever to 'optimise' a computer for DAW usage.

The whole concept of a DAW computer is bizarre, IMHO, it's based on the assumption that optimisation is necessary, due to weaknesses of the OS, and a fundamental lack of basic understanding of how computers are supposed to work.
Old 11th July 2017
  #1087
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
But you can have 7 FHD screens for every one 5k, or one 4k and 3 FHD screens in terms of matching pixels.
Not really in a studio. Three is the max for me. Two which are "close" but set lower so that they are not in the direct path of the speakers (they stand on a ledge behind and below the desk) and one larger one further back between the speakers and also not in the direct audio path.

7 HD screens is going to be a serious problem for the acoustics.

But yeah, I am all in favour of modular designs for studio use.

Alistair
Old 11th July 2017
  #1088
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowkey View Post
I already quoted your quote, which was specific to replacing a 2014 27" iMac...which is a 5k monitor mate. Stop with the backtracking...
No backtracking involved, I was talking about redundancy and 1/2 price there. If you're not willing to concede that Mac Pro users don't rush out and buy a 5K monitor because they are so incwedibwy important then that's your choice.
Old 11th July 2017
  #1089
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
ECC or non ECC does not show a measurable difference.
This was tested in a real project with different samplers, different content (15GB loaded in RAM), all kinds of insert & send plugins. No DAWBENCH, NO difference.
Interesting, what buffer size was it done at? Was it PC or Mac?
Old 11th July 2017
  #1090
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Not really in a studio. Three is the max for me. Two which are "close" but set lower so that they are not in the direct path of the speakers (they stand on a ledge behind and below the desk) and one larger one further back between the speakers and also not in the direct audio path.

7 HD screens is going to be a serious problem for the acoustics.

But yeah, I am all in favour of modular designs for studio use.

Alistair
Of course, I agree... I was just pointing out the number of pixels that have to be pushed around with different screen configs. There isn't zero cost to going 4K, 5K or 8K.
Old 11th July 2017
  #1091
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
My reading was that it's about one of those machines that are not allowed on the Internet, because they're too fragile to handle anything apart from running a DAW...


On a Mac, there's no need whatsoever to 'optimise' a computer for DAW usage.

The whole concept of a DAW computer is bizarre, IMHO, it's based on the assumption that optimisation is necessary, due to weaknesses of the OS, and a fundamental lack of basic understanding of how computers are supposed to work.
Companies like Vienna and EW recommend using PCs (in general) for farms because of the better performance. It really displays an incredible naivety and obvious coding obliviousness to assume that all OSes are created equally. Can and does one DAW perform better than another? Yes. Audio interfaces? Yes. OSes? Yes.

Computers components for low latency audio? Yes. There is hardware code/design in the chips, software microcode, software drivers interacting with the OS. It's possible to pick the best components for the best low latency performance and also to configure it optimally.

It's not a difficult concept to get. Unless you think computers are made of Apple magic.
Old 11th July 2017
  #1092
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
On a Mac, there's no need whatsoever to 'optimise' a computer for DAW usage.
All the theory about Apple being a fully optimized environment because of the limited hardware options and everything coming from the same company is a very nice marketing myth but is not true in practise.

OS X is a less efficient OS compared to Windows due to the OS design and the Mach kernel threading model that have made OS X a less efficient OS since day one compared to Windows, Linux, Free/Open/NetBSD etc.

Countless benchmarks from games to Photshop to browsers like Chrome to all cross-platform DAWs show this. Cross-platform DAW/plugin/VEPro developers have commented on this multiple times as have other developers. Apple fans hate to admit this (or will never admit it at all if they haven't looked into this topic and/or don't understand it) but it is the truth and it will not change in the foreseeable future. At least not for audio. (Developments on the graphic side might see benefits for OS X but we are talking about audio here).

And that is even before we talk about the more powerful PC hardware available outside the limited choice Apple gives.

Quote:
The whole concept of a DAW computer is bizarre, IMHO, it's based on the assumption that optimisation is necessary, due to weaknesses of the OS, and a fundamental lack of basic understanding of how computers are supposed to work.
You really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Macs are just PCs made by a particular system integrator, in this case Apple, and use the same generic 3rd party CPU's, RAM, controller chips etc that all the other PC system integrators and PC self-builders have access to. Knowing that Macs are just Apple branded PC's, the next thing to look at is the OS.

Anyone that assumes that different OSes that have significantly different architectures and design choices would automatically perform similarly would be showing complete ignorance of how computers and OSes work on even the most basic level. This is a ridiculously naive view.

In the real world you have to compare each OS from a design philosophy and implementation point of view and do real world tests to verify the actual performance. Not just you and me: Even the greatest experts in these fields need to do these kind of tests. It is as a result of these kinds of tests and performance benchmarks that the OSes get optimized and improved.

All the current CPU architectures, OS design choices, compiler design and optimization choices, software design and optimization choices, even programming language design choices are based on testing and analysing the results over decades. Tiny changes in CPU/OS/compiler design choices can have significant effects on performance. This should be obvious to anyone that knows anything about how computers work.

In more recent history, such tests have been performed numerous times for numerous applications and despite your assumptions it turns out that if any OS could really benefit from optimization for most, but especially for audio applications, it is OS X. Unfortunately that is unlikely to happen for a multitude of reasons.

Instead what Apple did when it comes to audio, is they optimized Logic for OS X. They optimized Logic by creating a dual-buffer playback system to counter the poor low-latency performance inherent in OS X. In the mean time, all the major DAW developers that didn't already have a dual-buffer system have implemented one so we are back where we started: OS X is less efficient than Windows for audio work.

Or rather, nearly back where we were: Even if OS X had been as efficient as Windows and all else had been equal, Core Audio has extra hidden buffers that cause (a little bit) of extra latency because Core Audio uses a software timer for it's audio data blocks management. Core Audio needs extra buffers in case the CPU is too busy doing other stuff to update the software timer on time for the next audio block to be processed and delivered to the next processing or hardware step.

On the Windows platform, ASIO uses a hardware timer. This means the timer is less dependant on CPU load and as a result the system does not need the extra safety buffers. In other words, all things being equal, which they are not, Core Audio adds extra latency compared to ASIO. The difference is small but it is real.

None of this is a real problem for most people in most usage scenario's and Core Audio has it's own advantages over ASIO but when it comes to performance and optimization, your arguments that Macs, OS X and Logic all coming from the same company means they do not need to be optimized are not only a naive wishful assumptions, they are plain wrong.

Alistair
Old 11th July 2017
  #1093
Lives for gear
 
zephonic's Avatar
What people mean is you can pick any Mac, take it out of the box, install Logic and it will work perfectly. CoreAudio is part of the OS, unlike ASIO, so there is no additional installation or tweaking involved. Hell, a lot of guys here run Mainstage or Ableton on gigs using the MacBook's headphone out at low latencies. It works fine, it sounds good.

So maybe no magic pixie dust, but yes, the fact that Apple builds all their own stuff is an advantage that you can't sweep under the rug.
Old 11th July 2017
  #1094
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
It's not a difficult concept to get. Unless you think computers are made of Apple magic.

(Holding graphics card in one hand, MLB in the other): "Now, how does this thing boot??"


Arguing that a piece of junk that requires extensive babysitting to make it work for audio is the same (or better) than well designed hardware and software makes no. sense. whatsoever.


There's no magic, just design expertise.

Example for poor design: Registry (single monolithic database for settings, single point of failure).
Better design: single configuration files: if one fails, everything else still works, if 10 fail, everything else still works, and all that needs to be done is restoring 10 small files from a back up. Single files can be deleted without risk > easy troubleshooting with minimal risk.


Common sense:
is it easier to write reliable DAW software that has to work with 400 different logic boards, 300 different graphics cards, or for 10 different logic boards, 5 different graphics cards.
Understandable that one of these would require extensive babysitting...
Old 11th July 2017
  #1095
Tui
Gear Guru
 
Tui's Avatar
Are you guys stuck in some time warp? Mac vs PC was a thing 15 years ago. This is 2017 and all computers are essentially the same.

BTW, the last time I checked, Mac vs PC was against forum rules.
Old 11th July 2017
  #1096
Lives for gear
 
latweek's Avatar
 

Old 11th July 2017
  #1097
Lives for gear
 
Poinzy's Avatar
 

Did somebody say Time Warp?...
It's astounding
Time is fleeting
Madness takes its toll...
Old 11th July 2017
  #1098
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
This discussion has been repeated over and over for about a million times.


You are right that you can have a 'powerful' PC for less money than a similar Mac as long as:

- you ignore total cost of ownership
- you ignore resale value
- you evaluate computers the way it was done in the 1990s (CPU speed and RAM tunnel vision)
- you ignore the value of software - both the OS and included apps
- you ignore the quality and speed of connections to peripherals
- you ignore build quality and materials
- you ignore the value of design (meaning actual design, like the design of trackpads, not 'looks')
- you ignore durability
- you ignore follow up cost for pro software (compare the price of Motion to similar PC apps. Or developer tools. Or FCP.)
- you ignore time spent for maintenance
- you ignore the speed of OS development
- you ignore integration with other computing devices
- you ignore actual customer satisfaction as a valid metric
Most of the things you listed, are the reason that I had a quality PC built, instead of buying a Mac.
Old 11th July 2017
  #1099
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by zephonic View Post
What people mean is you can pick any Mac, take it out of the box, install Logic and it will work perfectly. CoreAudio is part of the OS, unlike ASIO, so there is no additional installation or tweaking involved.
You don't have to install ASIO separately on Windows. ASIO is a protocol. If you have an ASIO compatible interface and an ASIO compatible DAW you follow the exact same process as on a Mac: Install the DAW; install the interface drivers and you are good to go. In that regard both platforms are pretty similar these days.

And btw, there is no mention of Logic in the title of this thread. This is not a Logic thread. It is more general than that. There are plenty of DAWs that run OS X. Most are not from Apple.

Quote:
Hell, a lot of guys here run Mainstage or Ableton on gigs using the MacBook's headphone out at low latencies. It works fine, it sounds good.
Sure. Macs are easy to use. No disagreement there. That is a big part of their appeal.

Quote:
So maybe no magic pixie dust, but yes, the fact that Apple builds all their own stuff is an advantage that you can't sweep under the rug.
It is an advantage for certain things like ease of use, which I don't think anyone ever denied, but it is not and advantage for software/OS efficiency. That is the other side of the story. Performance depends on many more things than the just the fact that the system and the software comes from the same company which is what stratology was implying. Performance is dependant on too many complex factors to be simplified that way.

For instance you say it "Works fine" when using the MacBook's headphone out but that depends how you define "Works fine". If you need more performance then using a dedicated professional audio interface (with good drivers and preferably hardware DMA acceleration like RME use or Avid use in their HD|Native cards) will improve performance (both under OS X and Windows) even though the 3rd party interface doesn't come from Apple (or Microsoft).

In other words, the "It all comes from Apple" card is being overstated and overplayed.

Alistair
Old 11th July 2017
  #1100
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
Example for poor design: Registry (single monolithic database for settings, single point of failure).
So you are saying that databases are a terrible idea. M'kay. Apart from whatever databases OSX uses I assume, as well as the rest of the world.
Quote:
Better design: single configuration files: if one fails, everything else still works, if 10 fail, everything else still works, and all that needs to be done is restoring 10 small files from a back up. Single files can be deleted without risk > easy troubleshooting with minimal risk.
You have completely portable installs on Windows. Also Windows backs up the registry automatically. Apps can not use it at all, or use it minimally. It's there as a performant service if it is required where opening and scanning lots of individual text files isn't optimal.
Quote:
Common sense:
is it easier to write reliable DAW software that has to work with 400 different logic boards, 300 different graphics cards, or for 10 different logic boards, 5 different graphics cards.
Understandable that one of these would require extensive babysitting...
You misunderstand everything here. You must not be familiar with changelogs for cross platform software. DAWs deal with APIs and which platform breaks things more often?
Old 11th July 2017
  #1101
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
So you are saying that databases are a terrible idea.
Of course not. You're deliberately trying to misunderstand, right??

Well, if you think a home built PC can compete with a modern iMac, I wouldn't expect you to get 'design', or get while a database for settings is a horrible idea, compared to single files.

A database for, say, your customer data would make sense, to name just one example.
But for that, you would need a computer that can handle more tasks than running a DAW.
And, you could differentiate further, between well designed and poorly designed databases.



Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
You must not be familiar with changelogs for cross platform software. DAWs deal with APIs and which platform breaks things more often?
Cross platform software > always a compromise. Example: Reaper is much crappier on macOS than on Windows.

I haven't seen macOS 'break' anything with DAWs, ever.
There are better and not so great developers, who are more or less capable of following advice from OS vendors.
And there are countless users who don't get computer basics, do blind upgrades, and then are surprised when things don't work anymore.


'Not getting computer basics' includes not getting that a computer is designed to perform different tasks reliably.
Old 11th July 2017
  #1102
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyA View Post
Most of the things you listed, are the reason that I had a quality PC built, instead of buying a Mac.
Feel free to give some specific examples, like the resale value of your PC compared to a Mac that cost the same, how exactly the automatic sync of pics you take on your phone works, how exactly you manage to see the browser tabs that are open on your tablet, how much you spent on professional software, how many full OS releases you've seen (and why this is different to everyone else on the planet), etc.


Yes, it's possible to work on a cheap piece of junk PC with pirated software, and it's a valid choice for some users, but bringing it up in a thread about Tim Cook and Mac desktops is a little silly, IMHO.
Old 12th July 2017
  #1103
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
Of course not. You're deliberately trying to misunderstand, right??

Well, if you think a home built PC can compete with a modern iMac, I wouldn't expect you to get 'design', or get while a database for settings is a horrible idea, compared to single files.
iMacs are pretty, but you really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about if you think something being home built somehow means it can't outperform an iMac, let alone simply compete.

And it's you putting words in my mouth by saying that better performance doing X means it can't do Y and Z equally well or better too. It seems to be a pattern.
Quote:
Cross platform software > always a compromise.
No, this is the same No True Scotsman fallacy that excuses poor performance on OSX with cross platform software - the only software it's possible to compare - we've been over before. Since Macs are pretty and some developers do prefer them, this alleged penalty/compromise should affect the Windows versions of some programs too, shouldn't it?

Cross platform software has access to native APIs, the problems clearly lie with what's behind those interfaces.
Old 12th July 2017
  #1104
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
Macs are pretty
This sums up your technical expertise when it comes to Macs. Perfect.
Old 12th July 2017
  #1105
Lives for gear
 
lowkey's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
iMacs are pretty, but you really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about if you think something being home built somehow means it can't outperform an iMac, let alone simply compete.
Well to be honest, it can't compete unless you deliberately leave out the 5k monitor... you've already proven that by not being able to link to a Daw manufacturers computer with 5k monitor thats between 1/3rd to 1/2 of the iMac.
Old 12th July 2017
  #1106
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
- you ignore the speed of OS development
- you ignore integration with other computing devices
I've worked in a bunch of studios, and never ever did any of them have to upgrade the Pro Tools HD system's software or hardware because there was a new OSX update that made them need to do so... ditto peripheral devices...

Like, when new OSX versions would only run on new macs that no longer had PCI and only PCIe, it didn't cost Pro Tools HD TDM owners anything to upgrade to PCIe.

Likewise this guy:



No added cost there.....

Just to add to the sarcasm: I ran about 4-5 versions of Nuendo on two PCs, which have run 2 OS versions (no need for more). And if i wanted to I could go out and buy a new AMD CPU with a B350 mobo that would support my LYNX PCI (not PCIe) card and run Win10. You know how old that PCI card is?...

"integration with other computing devices" and OS upgrades are hardly arguments to sell the idea that Macs offer cheaper ownership over time.
Old 12th July 2017
  #1107
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowkey View Post
Well to be honest, it can't compete unless you deliberately leave out the 5k monitor... you've already proven that by not being able to link to a Daw manufacturers computer with 5k monitor thats between 1/3rd to 1/2 of the iMac.
Isn't that a pointless argument though?

We are musicians and audio engineers on a musicians forum. How many of us give a crap about a 5k display versus a 4k display? And if the DAW manufacturer isn't selling an all-in-one system that includes the screen how can the comparison even be made? I mean, we could argue that a 3440x1440 ultrawide is far better than the 5k, so therefore the iMac can't compete. But it'd be the same problem conceptually.
Old 12th July 2017
  #1108
Lives for gear
 
B-San's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I mean, we could argue that a 3440x1440 ultrawide is far better than the 5k, so therefore the iMac can't compete. But it'd be the same problem conceptually.
Yeah, I feel also feel that 3440x1440 is better for audio work.. Also I like the fact that those monitors don't have any fans in them or processors which down-throttle due to lack of proper cooling, but I digress..
Old 12th July 2017
  #1109
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
My reading was that it's about one of those machines that are not allowed on the Internet, because they're too fragile to handle anything apart from running a DAW...
That seems to be your understanding. I haven't heard of a system that only is able to run a DAW, ever. You are probably talking about users who only WANT to run a DAW on that system, as it is their bread and butter system. Makes perfect sense to me. Or do you think Bob Clearmountain or his assistant use his PT Mac to write invoices or to order new napkins for his NS-10's?


Quote:
On a Mac, there's no need whatsoever to 'optimise' a computer for DAW usage.
AFAIK most specialists do make tweaks to OSX to make sure everything runs smooth as butter. I know a few who do this for a living and it surely is not just installing PT and done. OTOH, I do see it as an OSX strength that it runs very well for most applications right out of the box.
Quote:
The whole concept of a DAW computer is bizarre, IMHO, it's based on the assumption that optimisation is necessary, due to weaknesses of the OS
Windows is used by tons of different users and it is not known to MS what each license will be used for. Most users use all kinds of energy saving settings as you don't need 4GHz to write a letter to your kids teacher to claim he will never eat an orange in class again. Windows runs DAWs smooth right out of the box, the only setting that really is important is to set the power scheme to performance instead of energy saving. All other tweaks should be regarded as small optimizations which diminish the risk of interference. The interesting part is that many PC users and developers still think all the Windows background stuff is interfering, while it is not. So you may get your info here based on legacy information which often comes from the XP era (such as the processor scheduling tweak so often wrongly recommended). Note that Linux also is optimized during installation in most cases, so it also becomes optimized.
OSX/Apple is doing the same thing as we do aside from them doing it flatrate during development, as they always had their focus on the media industry, although that focus seems to shift more and more to consumers.

Quote:
and a fundamental lack of basic understanding of how computers are supposed to work.
Interesting. One of the main reasons for people to use Macs is because they claim they don't want to know about how computers are supposed to work. So do our customers, btw.


Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
Interesting, what buffer size was it done at? Was it PC or Mac?
I typically test at 64 samples regardless of the interface used. Then again, we do not test with bad interfaces.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
Example for poor design: Registry (single monolithic database for settings, single point of failure).
Better design: single configuration files: if one fails, everything else still works, if 10 fail, everything else still works, and all that needs to be done is restoring 10 small files from a back up. Single files can be deleted without risk > easy troubleshooting with minimal risk.
Developers can choose to use individual files or the registry, or both. You can run Reaper from a USB stick without ever installing it, for example. And I haven't had registry issues since Windows 7.

Quote:
Common sense:
is it easier to write reliable DAW software that has to work with 400 different logic boards, 300 different graphics cards, or for 10 different logic boards, 5 different graphics cards.
Understandable that one of these would require extensive babysitting...
If you think that is how developers develop you are pretty ignorant. It is up to the user to make sure not to buy garbage, which unfortunately IS the major contributor to a bad reputation of Windows.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
Well, if you think a home built PC can compete with a modern iMac, I wouldn't expect you to get 'design', or get while a database for settings is a horrible idea, compared to single files.
I am convinced that someone who does his homework about building a PC can build a much better system than an iMac. An iMac is nothing but a good screen in a posh design with laptop parts and an OS that runs fine out of the box. It is a mediocre unit, nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:
Cross platform software > always a compromise. Example: Reaper is much crappier on macOS than on Windows.
Interesting that ALL cross platform DAWs that have been benched have ALL run better on Windows than on OSX, especially for low latency, DESPITE the hidden buffer in CoreAudio. It must be a conspiracy of the DAW Illuminati.

Quote:
I haven't seen macOS 'break' anything with DAWs, ever.
There have been complaints about EVERY major OSX upgrade that various DAWs do not run properly on every Mac. Obviously it is not smart to update directly after a new OS upgrade, but your statement is clearly not true. Or why do you think there is always a sticky thread about the latest OSX version in this forum? Because it does NOT break anything?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post

I dig the portability and smooth design of that setup...

Don't get me wrong - I am not here to bash Apple or OSX, but to put some facts (and my opinion) to some of the nonsense which is posted here.
Old 12th July 2017
  #1110
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
"integration with other computing devices" and OS upgrades are hardly arguments to sell the idea that Macs offer cheaper ownership over time.
I already explained what I meant by 'integration with other computing devices'. Right now, I'm in the process of creating a new (music related) website for myself. I take pics on my iPad, and edit them on iPad. They show up immediately, without any kind of user interaction, in Aperture on my Mac, to be used with Squarespace.

This is just one example where 'integration with other computing devices' that saves a lot of time and hassle.

When I plug in a USB hard disk, it shows up on the desktop, ready to use.
When I plug in a USB stick, I never see a bizarre dialogue that offers to install a driver, it shows up on the desktop, ready to use.

When I add a contact from a new person on my iPhone, it shows up on all other devices, without interaction, and while preserving my privacy (unlike anything from Google, who harvest all information for advertising purposes).

These are just a few of literally countless examples about 'integration with other computing devices'.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump