Macintosh or Windows [Archive]

hank alrich

June 15th 09, 02:32 AM

geoff > wrote:

> Thomas Reinhardt wrote:
> > I haven't read this group in a while, so I'm not sure if this
> > question is appropriate, or if it has been beaten to death in another
> > thread, but here goes:
> >
> > I have an old Windows machine that I've used to make decent
> > recordings. It hosts Cubase, using Native Instruments, etc. A lot of
> > VST, and very little live (Audio) load.
> >
> > I'm thinking of replacing this box soon and am wondering what you, the
> > people who make a living with these tools, might suggest:
> >
> > Buying another Windoze box (if so, wait until Windows 7?), staying
> > with old Cubase and a host of VST plugs;
> >
> > Buying a Macintosh, running Logic, Reason, and rewiring the VST
> > plugs? Or,
> >
> > Doing something insane such as trying to use this Linux box to produce
> > decent quality recordings?
> >
> > I appreciate any time and suggestions --at your convenience, of
> > course.
>
> Decide on the APPLICICATION you want to use, ignoring religous zealots, and
> get the platform it requires.
>
> Note you can now run Windows on Macs (now that they've swung over to the
> main Win CPU), so if you really want to spend more money and have a feeling
> of inherent superiority and creativity, you can.

Hey, over 6.5 years into this TiBook, I don't feel superior. It just
works for me, and I don't have any desire to learn Windows, just like I
have no desire to learn bassoon. <g>

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

Nil

June 15th 09, 04:40 AM

On 14 Jun 2009, Thomas Reinhardt > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> I have an old Windows machine that I've used to make decent
> recordings. It hosts Cubase, using Native Instruments, etc. A lot
> of VST, and very little live (Audio) load.
>
> I'm thinking of replacing this box soon and am wondering what you,
> the people who make a living with these tools, might suggest:
>
> Buying another Windoze box (if so, wait until Windows 7?), staying
> with old Cubase and a host of VST plugs;
>
> Buying a Macintosh, running Logic, Reason, and rewiring the VST
> plugs? Or,

If you want to spend money buying brand new software that duplicates
what you already have, and spending time learning how to use it,
consider the Mac. If you're comfortable with the software you already
have, and it does what you want, consider Windows. Be sure to check
what versions of Windows your version of Cubase will run on - if it's
an older version, it may not run on Vista or Windows 7. If so, you'll
have to upgrade that software, too. You don't say what you're using
now, so I can't guess how old your Cubase is.

> Doing something insane such as trying to use this Linux box to
> produce decent quality recordings?

I don't think there are any audio apps available for Linux that have
the rich features that you find in the fanciest Windows and Mac
programs.

If it were me, I'd stick to Windows, probably XP since it's stable and
I know how to make it do my bidding. Running on a PC that I'd put
together myself. I have no incentive to spend a ton on money on a Mac
and redundant software when there is no practical advantage to me. If I
were starting out with nothing I might approach it differently.

Geoff

June 15th 09, 04:44 AM

hank alrich wrote:
..
>
> Hey, over 6.5 years into this TiBook, I don't feel superior. It just
> works for me, and I don't have any desire to learn Windows, just like
> I have no desire to learn bassoon. <g>

You can't have been absorbing the ads then. Otherwise you'd have upgraded
to a prettier colour by now ;-)

geoff

[email protected]

June 15th 09, 05:37 AM

On 2009-06-15 said:
>> I have an old Windows machine that I've used to make decent
>> recordings. It hosts Cubase, using Native Instruments, etc.
<snip>
>> I'm thinking of replacing this box soon and am wondering what you,
>> the people who make a living with these tools, might suggest:
>> Buying another Windoze box (if so, wait until Windows 7?),
I don't use either, I"m a stand alone recorder type of guy,
I like my analog interface.

DO you need more live capability to make a buck? What do
you need you don't get out of your current box?

If it's a hobby and you were having fun with it and getting
acceptable sounding tracks why switch at all? Why not run
your existing system? IF you don't need additional tracking
simultaneously or something else spend your money on better
mics, a better pre or two, or even <gasp> where it really
counts, improving your room. NEwer software probably isn't
gonna improve the sound coming out of the speakers all that
much if it doesn't offer something you've really got to have
right now.

Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

Richard Crowley

June 15th 09, 08:20 AM

Thomas Reinhardt wrote:
> I haven't read this group in a while, so I'm not sure if this
> question is appropriate, or if it has been beaten to death in another
> thread, but here goes:
>
> I have an old Windows machine that I've used to make decent
> recordings. It hosts Cubase, using Native Instruments, etc. A lot of
> VST, and very little live (Audio) load.
>
> I'm thinking of replacing this box soon

Perhaps you should start by revealing WHY you are thinking of
replacing this box soon? Absent that we have only vague dreams
to reply to.

Richard Crowley

June 15th 09, 08:29 AM

Soundhaspriority wrote:
> I'm a Windows user, but there are very legitmate reasons to run a
> Mac. The whole theory of Mac ownership is to pay more for a superior
> product, and avoid a lot of compatibility problems that frequently
> crop up with Windows. If you have a lot of cash, the Mac makes a lot
> of sense.

The "Mac Tax" extends well beyond the initial purchase price. You keep
paying for it over the entire life of the computer.

Arny Krueger

June 15th 09, 11:37 AM

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message

> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>> I'm a Windows user, but there are very legitimate reasons
>> to run a Mac. The whole theory of Mac ownership is to
>> pay more for a superior product, and avoid a lot of compatibility
>> problems that frequently crop up with
>> Windows. If you have a lot of cash, the Mac makes a lot
>> of sense.
>
> The "Mac Tax" extends well beyond the initial purchase
> price. You keep paying for it over the entire life of the
> computer.

My daughter was forced to buy a Mac at her own expense by her employer. She
worked in a lab that was run by some Mac enthusiasts. To do her work she
needed to use some very expensive analytical software that the lab had
volume licenses for, but just the Mac versions. She paid about $2,500 for a
pretty ordinary 15" screen laptop that she needed to run about $5,000 worth
of software that she could use for no extra cost due to the lab's volume
licenses.

The Mac UI is cool. Of course it looks a lot like Vista to many of us, but
Mac did it first.

She had some trouble with he Mac laptop. Even though she had paid $400 for
Mac's extended warranty they declined to help her because the laptop had
been "abused" - it had a tiny dent in one corner of the case where it had
been shoved a little hard against the corner of another laptop. Needless to
say, she's not going to buy another. She now has a Dell.

hank alrich

June 15th 09, 04:21 PM

geoff > wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> .
> >
> > Hey, over 6.5 years into this TiBook, I don't feel superior. It just
> > works for me, and I don't have any desire to learn Windows, just like
> > I have no desire to learn bassoon. <g>
>
> You can't have been absorbing the ads then. Otherwise you'd have upgraded
> to a prettier colour by now ;-)

LOL! In reality, I don't see any ads unless my son finds an Apple ad
hilarious and shows it to me. I don't watch TV.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

hank alrich

June 15th 09, 04:21 PM

Richard Crowley > wrote:

> Soundhaspriority wrote:
> > I'm a Windows user, but there are very legitmate reasons to run a
> > Mac. The whole theory of Mac ownership is to pay more for a superior
> > product, and avoid a lot of compatibility problems that frequently
> > crop up with Windows. If you have a lot of cash, the Mac makes a lot
> > of sense.
>
> The "Mac Tax" extends well beyond the initial purchase price. You keep
> paying for it over the entire life of the computer.

Please explain.

I am running a machine I bought in November of 2002. I have replaced the
HD and upgraded from a regular optical drive to one that burns DVD's.
Other than that I can't find any "taxes" paid on this machine. We have
several even older Macs here that run just fine, thanks, and those also
somehow escaped your alleged "tax".

I find your zealotry amusing, Richard. WTF causes you to have such a
stupid agenda?

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

Sean[_5_]

June 15th 09, 05:10 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
>
>> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>> I'm a Windows user, but there are very legitimate reasons
>>> to run a Mac. The whole theory of Mac ownership is to
>>> pay more for a superior product, and avoid a lot of compatibility
>>> problems that frequently crop up with
>>> Windows. If you have a lot of cash, the Mac makes a lot
>>> of sense.
>> The "Mac Tax" extends well beyond the initial purchase
>> price. You keep paying for it over the entire life of the
>> computer.
>
> My daughter was forced to buy a Mac at her own expense by her employer. She
> worked in a lab that was run by some Mac enthusiasts. To do her work she
> needed to use some very expensive analytical software that the lab had
> volume licenses for, but just the Mac versions. She paid about $2,500 for a
> pretty ordinary 15" screen laptop that she needed to run about $5,000 worth
> of software that she could use for no extra cost due to the lab's volume
> licenses.
>
> The Mac UI is cool. Of course it looks a lot like Vista to many of us, but
> Mac did it first.
>
> She had some trouble with he Mac laptop. Even though she had paid $400 for
> Mac's extended warranty they declined to help her because the laptop had
> been "abused" - it had a tiny dent in one corner of the case where it had
> been shoved a little hard against the corner of another laptop. Needless to
> say, she's not going to buy another. She now has a Dell.
>
>

This sort of anecdote can be misleading, though. I have a
counter-anecdote. My daughter was in Hawaii, which is part of a foreign
country and very far from us. Her three year old Mac PowerBook died, and
knowing my daughter, I know she hadn't taken very good care of it. I
imagine she probably updated her FaceBook page while surfing. Anyway,
she took it to the Mac dealer on Maui. They checked the serial number
and voila, they replaced the mother board and had it back to her within
a day. But that's just one incident.

Richard Crowley

June 15th 09, 05:16 PM

hank alrich wrote:
> Richard Crowley > wrote:
>> The "Mac Tax" extends well beyond the initial purchase price. You
>> keep paying for it over the entire life of the computer.
>
> Please explain.
>
> I am running a machine I bought in November of 2002. I have replaced
> the HD and upgraded from a regular optical drive to one that burns
> DVD's. Other than that I can't find any "taxes" paid on this machine.
> We have several even older Macs here that run just fine, thanks, and
> those also somehow escaped your alleged "tax".
>
> I find your zealotry amusing, Richard. WTF causes you to have such a
> stupid agenda?

You exhibit exaxtly the kind of zealotry that Mac fans are famous for.
If you don't follow the computer business, perhaps you should restrict
your comments to audio topics here.

Richard Crowley

June 15th 09, 05:17 PM

hank alrich wrote:
> LOL! In reality, I don't see any ads unless my son finds an Apple ad
> hilarious and shows it to me. I don't watch TV.

LOL! Apparently you haven't seen any of the Microsoft ads showing
real people shopping for computers and finding PCs far less expensive
(and better featured as well).

Les Cargill

June 15th 09, 05:20 PM

hank alrich wrote:
> Richard Crowley > wrote:
>
>> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>> I'm a Windows user, but there are very legitmate reasons to run a
>>> Mac. The whole theory of Mac ownership is to pay more for a superior
>>> product, and avoid a lot of compatibility problems that frequently
>>> crop up with Windows. If you have a lot of cash, the Mac makes a lot
>>> of sense.
>> The "Mac Tax" extends well beyond the initial purchase price. You keep
>> paying for it over the entire life of the computer.
>
> Please explain.
>
> I am running a machine I bought in November of 2002. I have replaced the
> HD and upgraded from a regular optical drive to one that burns DVD's.
> Other than that I can't find any "taxes" paid on this machine.

"Mac tax" is a crude and scansion way of saying "costs more". YMMV. I'd
still be using a Compaq we bought in 1999, but the CD burner went out
a couple years ago, and Mrs. Les refused to allow me to fix it - wanted
a new one.

> We have
> several even older Macs here that run just fine, thanks, and those also
> somehow escaped your alleged "tax".
>
> I find your zealotry amusing, Richard. WTF causes you to have such a
> stupid agenda?
>

Dunno from "zealotry" - software, peripherals, service all cost
more on a Mac. Doze Box I'm typing on now was on the order of $300
plus the cost of a handful of software packages, most of which
were bought some time ago.

We were looking for notebooks and netbooks for the youngest child
recently, and boy, those Mac laptops are something they're
pretty proud of. Roughly 4:1 or 3:1 in price. We found her a
netbook for less even than a cheap Doze laptop, and she's
very happy - she's running all over the state, and the form
factor came first. She has down time in geographically diverse
places, and uses that to enter experimental data for her "employers"
at school.

On a Total Cost of Ownership basis, not a consumerist basis,
I'm sure the distinctions vanish somewhat. Depreciation
doth make paupers of us all...

--
Les Cargill

Arny Krueger

June 15th 09, 06:30 PM

"hank alrich" > wrote in message

> geoff > wrote:

>> hank alrich wrote:

>>> Hey, over 6.5 years into this TiBook, I don't feel
>>> superior. It just works for me, and I don't have any
>>> desire to learn Windows, just like I have no desire to
>>> learn bassoon. <g>

>> You can't have been absorbing the ads then. Otherwise
>> you'd have upgraded to a prettier colour by now ;-)

> LOL! In reality, I don't see any ads unless my son finds
> an Apple ad hilarious and shows it to me. I don't watch
> TV.

The "Apple Tax" is generally defined as the difference between an Apple
computer with a given hardware configuration, and a computer with a
comparable hardware configuration from say, Dell or HP.

Last time I looked, the "Apple tax" was about 100% - the Apple cost about
twice the price of the Dell.

garyvee

June 15th 09, 08:26 PM

On Jun 15, 9:16 am, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
> hank alrich wrote:
> > Richard Crowley > wrote:
> >> The "Mac Tax" extends well beyond the initial purchase price. You
> >> keep paying for it over the entire life of the computer.
>
> > Please explain.
>
> > I am running a machine I bought in November of 2002. I have replaced
> > the HD and upgraded from a regular optical drive to one that burns
> > DVD's. Other than that I can't find any "taxes" paid on this machine.
> > We have several even older Macs here that run just fine, thanks, and
> > those also somehow escaped your alleged "tax".
>
> > I find your zealotry amusing, Richard. WTF causes you to have such a
> > stupid agenda?
>
> You exhibit exaxtly the kind of zealotry that Mac fans are famous for.
> If you don't follow the computer business, perhaps you should restrict
> your comments to audio topics here.

Please enlighten us with this so-called "life of computer" Mac tax. I
did pay for a Mac OS update once, but I guess I thought it was fair to
pay for a major product upgrade.

dwgriffi[_2_]

June 15th 09, 08:31 PM

On Jun 15, 1:30*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> The "Apple Tax" is generally defined as the difference between an Apple
> computer with a given hardware configuration, and a computer with a
> comparable hardware configuration from say, Dell or HP.
>
> Last time I looked, the "Apple tax" was about 100% - the Apple cost about
> twice the price of the Dell.

Never been the case if you're in fact comparing comparable hardware
and software. Urban legend. When did you look, and what models?
Comparing a crappy bottom of the line $600 Dell to a MacBookPro is
flawed, so please clear this up.

dwgriffi[_2_]

June 15th 09, 08:59 PM

On Jun 15, 12:20*pm, Les Cargill > wrote:

>
> We were looking for notebooks and netbooks for the youngest child
> recently, and boy, those Mac laptops are something they're
> pretty proud of. Roughly 4:1 or 3:1 in price.

Les! : ) Don't compare Mac laptops to anyone's notebooks or
netbooks! *Does not compute...* : )

Apple hasn't released anything remotely like a netbook yet. I love my
wife's $350 Asus. It's awesome as a netbook. But the 4:1 I paid for
my MBP makes more than sense to me.

Apples to apples, please : )

Richard Crowley

June 15th 09, 09:12 PM

"garyvee" wrote from Google Land...
> Please enlighten us with this so-called "life of computer" Mac tax. I
> did pay for a Mac OS update once, but I guess I thought it was fair to
> pay for a major product upgrade.

IIRC Mac has never had as much as 15% market share, usually half that.
Therefore...

Hardware: single source = higher prices for equal performance/features
Apple has taken various agressive, active measures against any 3rd
party that dared compete with them for hardware. Ranging from legal
actions to buying the company and disbanding it. One can make several
good arguments why a single source is a good thing, but competition,
price, cost/perormance are not among them.

There is an amusing series of TV commercials currently running which
show real customers comparing bang for the buck and getting equivalent
(and often better) value from a PC at half the price of a Mac.

Software & peripherals: fractional market = fewer choices = higher prices
In certain narrow vertical markets it may even make economical sense
to go Mac. But for general computing, decades of market statistics
show that users (both individuals and corporate) vote with their $$$ for
the clearly better cost/performance.

Richard Crowley

June 15th 09, 09:15 PM

An annoymous poster hiding behind the alis"dwgriffi" wrote from Google Land
....
> "Arny Krueger" wrote:
> > The "Apple Tax" is generally defined as the difference between an Apple
> > computer with a given hardware configuration, and a computer with a
> > comparable hardware configuration from say, Dell or HP.
> >
> > Last time I looked, the "Apple tax" was about 100% - the Apple cost
> > about
> > twice the price of the Dell.
>
> Never been the case if you're in fact comparing comparable hardware
> and software. Urban legend. When did you look, and what models?
> Comparing a crappy bottom of the line $600 Dell to a MacBookPro is
> flawed, so please clear this up.

And the major flaw is that you can barely get a case for your Mac
for $600. You certainly can't get any kind of Apple notebook for
that kind of price.

Arny Krueger

June 15th 09, 09:43 PM

"dwgriffi" > wrote in message

> Never been the case if you're in fact comparing
> comparable hardware and software. Urban legend.

Prove it.

> When did you look, and what models?

Must have been about 3 years ago when my daughter made her Macinvestment
which turned into a Macloss.

> Comparing a crappy bottom
> of the line $600 Dell to a MacBookPro is flawed, so
> please clear this up.

Well, you're wrong on several counts.

First off, I didn't specify any particular Dell or Mac, so your example is
something *you* made up. If *you* want to argue with *yourself*, please be
my guest.

Secondly, $600 does not get you a crappy $600 bottom of the line Dell. The
bottom of the line Dell costs significantly less than $600.

Thirdly, your claim that any particular computer is crappy is just an
unsubstantiated claim. Urban legend?

dwgriffi[_2_]

June 15th 09, 09:47 PM

On Jun 15, 4:15*pm, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:

> You certainly can't get any kind of Apple notebook for
> that kind of price.

Richard, you're mistaking the fact that they don't offer one with
something else : )

$600 notebooks have razor thin profit margins. Who can blame them for
not getting involved? Why bother. Like I say, I love the cheap
Windows netbooks for what they are, but you better believe Asus didn't
make any money off of me when I bought it on sale plus a rebate for
less than an iPhone.

Arny Krueger

June 15th 09, 09:55 PM

"dwgriffi" > wrote in message

> On Jun 15, 12:20 pm, Les Cargill >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> We were looking for notebooks and netbooks for the
>> youngest child recently, and boy, those Mac laptops are
>> something they're pretty proud of. Roughly 4:1 or 3:1 in
>> price.
>
>
> Les! : ) Don't compare Mac laptops to anyone's
> notebooks or netbooks! *Does not compute...* : )

IOW, the author believes that Apples have some intangible, perhaps spiritual
quality that vastly increases their value.

Arny Krueger

June 15th 09, 09:58 PM

"dwgriffi" > wrote in message

> On Jun 15, 4:15 pm, "Richard Crowley"
> > wrote:
>
>> You certainly can't get any kind of Apple notebook for
>> that kind of price.
>
> Richard, you're mistaking the fact that they don't offer
> one with something else : )

> $600 notebooks have razor thin profit margins.

Whatever that means.

> Who can blame them for not getting involved?

Whatever that means.

> Why bother. Like I
> say, I love the cheap Windows netbooks for what they are,
> but you better believe Asus didn't make any money off of
> me when I bought it on sale plus a rebate for less than
> an iPhone.

The price of iPhones includes a lot of intangibles.

Asus is a very profitable, rapidly growing company, maybe half the size of
Microsoft but growing at many times Microsoft's rate. I don't think they do
that by "Losing a little money on each one and making it up with high
volume"

Scott Dorsey

June 15th 09, 10:09 PM

Thomas Reinhardt > wrote:
>I haven't read this group in a while, so I'm not sure if this question is
>appropriate, or if it has been beaten to death in another thread, but
>here goes:

Please don't.

This is like going into an Irish pub and asking if Protestantism or
Catholicism is better. You won't learn anything about the relative
merits, and you're apt to be injured in the crossfire.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Phil W

June 15th 09, 10:22 PM

hank alrich wrote:

> I am running a machine I bought in November of 2002. I have replaced
> the HD and upgraded from a regular optical drive to one that burns
> DVD's. Other than that I can't find any "taxes" paid on this machine.
> We have several even older Macs here that run just fine, thanks, and
> those also somehow escaped your alleged "tax".

Oh, and I know quite a few Windows computers of probably the same age, that
run "just fine", as well. Sorry, but that´s reality... They may not have the
right look or name, but the machines inside also work after about 10 years
or more.
Those "older Macs" you mention, probably also don´t run today´s
state-of-the-art software, but something that was modern, when the hardware
was modern. You can have that with other computers, too.
I´m NOT saying, it isn´t possible with Macs, but they are definitely not the
only computers with such a life-span...

Phil

Les Cargill

June 15th 09, 10:35 PM

dwgriffi wrote:
> On Jun 15, 12:20 pm, Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>> We were looking for notebooks and netbooks for the youngest child
>> recently, and boy, those Mac laptops are something they're
>> pretty proud of. Roughly 4:1 or 3:1 in price.
>
>
> Les! : ) Don't compare Mac laptops to anyone's notebooks or
> netbooks! *Does not compute...* : )
>

I would not be surprised at that.

> Apple hasn't released anything remotely like a netbook yet.

Right - I did not mean to imply they had!

> I love my
> wife's $350 Asus. It's awesome as a netbook. But the 4:1 I paid for
> my MBP makes more than sense to me.
>
> Apples to apples, please : )

No, I expect that it's *more* than 4:1 between a netbook and a low-end
Mac laptop - low-end Doze laptops run 1.3:1 or 2:1 to a netbook,
easily.

Sorry - I did not mean to imply equivalence - the "we were looking
for a netbook" thing just describes why I checked price on a Mac
laptop at all.

Still, I wanna borrow the netbook and run a mix over the local wireless
network. I will bet it's just fine - but there's no hope at all of PCI,
ePCI or Firewire on a netbook. I use a five-year-old desktop, and other
than the display size, the netbook feels about like it.

--
Les Cargill

Richard Crowley

June 15th 09, 10:55 PM

"dwgriffi" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>
> > You certainly can't get any kind of Apple notebook for
> > that kind of price.
>
> Richard, you're mistaking the fact that they don't offer one with
> something else : )
>
> $600 notebooks have razor thin profit margins. Who can blame them for
> not getting involved? Why bother. Like I say, I love the cheap
> Windows netbooks for what they are, but you better believe Asus didn't
> make any money off of me when I bought it on sale plus a rebate for
> less than an iPhone.

You don't really belive that Asus (or any other legitimate company)
is losing money on mass-market sales, do you? Perhaps you think
the old line: "We don't many any profit on them, but we'll make it
up in volume" is not just a joke.

The reason your Asus netbook costs less (after rebate) than an
iPhone is not because Asus is doing you a favor. It is because the
iPhone (like all Apple products) is vastly overpriced.
And thereby the discussion closes back around on itself.

hank alrich

June 16th 09, 12:10 AM

Richard Crowley > wrote:

> An annoymous poster hiding behind the alis"dwgriffi" wrote from Google Land
> ...
> > "Arny Krueger" wrote:
> > > The "Apple Tax" is generally defined as the difference between an Apple
> > > computer with a given hardware configuration, and a computer with a
> > > comparable hardware configuration from say, Dell or HP.
> > >
> > > Last time I looked, the "Apple tax" was about 100% - the Apple cost
> > > about
> > > twice the price of the Dell.
> >
> > Never been the case if you're in fact comparing comparable hardware
> > and software. Urban legend. When did you look, and what models?
> > Comparing a crappy bottom of the line $600 Dell to a MacBookPro is
> > flawed, so please clear this up.
>
> And the major flaw is that you can barely get a case for your Mac
> for $600. You certainly can't get any kind of Apple notebook for
> that kind of price.

You didn't answer his question. Either put up or shut up.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

hank alrich

June 16th 09, 12:10 AM

Richard Crowley > wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Richard Crowley > wrote:
> >> The "Mac Tax" extends well beyond the initial purchase price. You
> >> keep paying for it over the entire life of the computer.
> >
> > Please explain.
> >
> > I am running a machine I bought in November of 2002. I have replaced
> > the HD and upgraded from a regular optical drive to one that burns
> > DVD's. Other than that I can't find any "taxes" paid on this machine.
> > We have several even older Macs here that run just fine, thanks, and
> > those also somehow escaped your alleged "tax".
> >
> > I find your zealotry amusing, Richard. WTF causes you to have such a
> > stupid agenda?
>
> You exhibit exaxtly the kind of zealotry that Mac fans are famous for.
> If you don't follow the computer business, perhaps you should restrict
> your comments to audio topics here.

What I have followed is studies showing that if Wintel boxen are spec'd
to match, they cost as much.

I don't give as **** what computer you use. I do smell bull**** in your
story, though.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

hank alrich

June 16th 09, 12:10 AM

Phil W > wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
>
> > I am running a machine I bought in November of 2002. I have replaced
> > the HD and upgraded from a regular optical drive to one that burns
> > DVD's. Other than that I can't find any "taxes" paid on this machine.
> > We have several even older Macs here that run just fine, thanks, and
> > those also somehow escaped your alleged "tax".
>
> Oh, and I know quite a few Windows computers of probably the same age, that
> run "just fine", as well. Sorry, but that´s reality... They may not have the
> right look or name, but the machines inside also work after about 10 years
> or more.
> Those "older Macs" you mention, probably also don´t run today´s
> state-of-the-art software, but something that was modern, when the hardware
> was modern. You can have that with other computers, too.
> I´m NOT saying, it isn´t possible with Macs, but they are definitely not the
> only computers with such a life-span...
>
>
> Phil

They run what we need to run, and that is all they need to run. We don't
"upgrade" to run with the neighbors. W2e do what we need to do, and
replace tools when they can't help us do that.

My mom-in-law is running a Wintel box as old as some of our Macs, no
problem. And my bro'-in-law minds it daily to avoid virii. Not one
minute nor one penny spent doing that on our Macs in the last fifteen
years.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

Richard Crowley

June 16th 09, 01:03 AM

hank alrich wrote:
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>> Never been the case if you're in fact comparing comparable hardware
>>> and software. Urban legend. When did you look, and what models?
>>> Comparing a crappy bottom of the line $600 Dell to a MacBookPro is
>>> flawed, so please clear this up.
>>
>> And the major flaw is that you can barely get a case for your Mac
>> for $600. You certainly can't get any kind of Apple notebook for
>> that kind of price.
>
> You didn't answer his question. Either put up or shut up.

The fact that you can't get an equivalent Apple for what PCs
sell for IS the whole point.

Steve King

June 16th 09, 01:25 AM

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
| Richard Crowley > wrote:
|
| > An annoymous poster hiding behind the alis"dwgriffi" wrote from Google
Land
| > ...
| > > "Arny Krueger" wrote:
| > > > The "Apple Tax" is generally defined as the difference between an
Apple
| > > > computer with a given hardware configuration, and a computer with a
| > > > comparable hardware configuration from say, Dell or HP.
| > > >
| > > > Last time I looked, the "Apple tax" was about 100% - the Apple cost
| > > > about
| > > > twice the price of the Dell.
| > >
| > > Never been the case if you're in fact comparing comparable hardware
| > > and software. Urban legend. When did you look, and what models?
| > > Comparing a crappy bottom of the line $600 Dell to a MacBookPro is
| > > flawed, so please clear this up.
| >
| > And the major flaw is that you can barely get a case for your Mac
| > for $600. You certainly can't get any kind of Apple notebook for
| > that kind of price.
|
| You didn't answer his question. Either put up or shut up.
|
| --
| ha
| shut up and play your guitar

The fact is mine is bigger than yours whatever we're talking about!! That's
just the way it is. Get used to it.

Steve King

Arny Krueger

June 16th 09, 02:31 AM

"hank alrich" > wrote in message

> What I have followed is studies showing that if Wintel
> boxen are spec'd to match, they cost as much.

Reports produced by people trying to promote Apple computers, natch.

dwgriffi

June 16th 09, 02:49 AM

On Jun 15, 4:43*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "dwgriffi" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Never been the case if you're in fact comparing
> > comparable hardware and software. *Urban legend.
>
> Prove it.
>
> > *When did you look, and what models?
>
> Must have been about 3 years ago when my daughter made her Macinvestment
> which turned into a Macloss.
>
> > *Comparing a crappy bottom
> > of the line $600 Dell to a MacBookPro is flawed, so
> > please clear this up.
>
> Well, you're wrong on several counts.
>
> First off, I didn't specify any particular Dell or Mac, so your example is
> something *you* made up. If *you* want to argue with *yourself*, please be
> my guest.
>
> Secondly, $600 does not get you a crappy $600 bottom of the line Dell. The
> bottom of the line Dell costs significantly less than $600.
>
> Thirdly, your claim that any particular computer is crappy is just an
> unsubstantiated claim. Urban legend?

Oh for cryin' out loud Arny, it was obvious I just threw out an
arbitrary figure because there was none in your anecdote. It was
clear I wasn't trying to show an example of anything. Sorry if your
daughter had a bad experience. It's the opposite of mine.

>>Les! : ) Don't compare Mac laptops to anyone's
> >notebooks or netbooks! *Does not compute...* : )

>IOW, the author believes that Apples have some intangible, perhaps spiritual
>quality that vastly increases their value.

What in the world can you be referring to? You didn't get that I was
merely saying "Don't compare a netbook to a laptop?" I've never had
any Apple Kool-Aid. You're assuming way too much. Not very
scientific : )

>>> You certainly can't get any kind of Apple notebook for
>>> that kind of price.

>> Richard, you're mistaking the fact that they don't offer
>> one with something else : )
>> $600 notebooks have razor thin profit margins.

> Whatever that means.

Anyone's cheap notebooks have thinner profit margins than anyone's
higher end ones. You disagree? Or don't comprehend? What? : )

>> Who can blame them for not getting involved?

>Whatever that means.

It means Apple chooses to go with products with higher margins. You
may follow with nonsensical pithy remark of your choice now. : )

>Asus is a very profitable, rapidly growing company, maybe half the size of
>Microsoft but growing at many times Microsoft's rate. I don't think they do
>that by "Losing a little money on each one and making it up with high
>volume"

Where have I implied anything of the sort? Losing money is not the
same as a low margin. Are you putting words in my mouth or someone
else's?

Sorry for your bad Mac experience. I'll never get over my awful Dell
one : )

d

Richard Crowley

June 16th 09, 03:08 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "hank alrich" wrote
>> What I have followed is studies showing that if Wintel
>> boxen are spec'd to match, they cost as much.
>
> Reports produced by people trying to promote Apple computers, natch.

And yet they still have only a tiny fractional market share. Apparently
most consumers are immune from the propaganda and vote with
their feet.

Even Apple themselves decided that Intel Architecture PC hardware
was better value and performance than their proprietary PowerPC
platform and switched to something that could compete with PCs.

Arny Krueger

June 16th 09, 03:24 AM

"dwgriffi" > wrote in message

> On Jun 15, 4:43 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "dwgriffi" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Never been the case if you're in fact comparing
>>> comparable hardware and software. Urban legend.
>>
>> Prove it.
>>
>>> When did you look, and what models?
>>
>> Must have been about 3 years ago when my daughter made
>> her Macinvestment which turned into a Macloss.
>>
>>> Comparing a crappy bottom
>>> of the line $600 Dell to a MacBookPro is flawed, so
>>> please clear this up.
>>
>> Well, you're wrong on several counts.
>>
>> First off, I didn't specify any particular Dell or Mac,
>> so your example is something *you* made up. If *you*
>> want to argue with *yourself*, please be my guest.
>>
>> Secondly, $600 does not get you a crappy $600 bottom of
>> the line Dell. The bottom of the line Dell costs
>> significantly less than $600.
>>
>> Thirdly, your claim that any particular computer is
>> crappy is just an unsubstantiated claim. Urban legend?
>
> Oh for cryin' out loud Arny, it was obvious I just threw
> out an arbitrary figure because there was none in your
> anecdote.

It was gratuitous and simply wrong.

> It was clear I wasn't trying to show an
> example of anything.

If you want to say that your post had no point, then I'm happy to agree.

> Sorry if your daughter had a bad
> experience. It's the opposite of mine.

Not the point. The point is "what is the Mac tax".

> >>Les! : ) Don't compare Mac laptops to anyone's
>>> notebooks or netbooks! *Does not compute...* : )

>> IOW, the author believes that Apples have some
>> intangible, perhaps spiritual quality that vastly
>> increases their value.

> What in the world can you be referring to? You didn't
> get that I was merely saying "Don't compare a netbook to
> a laptop?" I've never had any Apple Kool-Aid. You're
> assuming way too much. Not very scientific : )
>
>>>> You certainly can't get any kind of Apple notebook for
>>>> that kind of price.

>>> Richard, you're mistaking the fact that they don't offer
>>> one with something else : )
>>> $600 notebooks have razor thin profit margins.

>> Whatever that means.

> Anyone's cheap notebooks have thinner profit margins than
> anyone's higher end ones. You disagree? Or don't
> comprehend? What? : )

I've been in retailing for over 20 years. I know that profit margins very,
deal by deal.

>>> Who can blame them for not getting involved?
>
>> Whatever that means.

> It means Apple chooses to go with products with higher
> margins. You may follow with nonsensical pithy remark of
> your choice now. : )

Higher profit margins mean less actual value.

>> Asus is a very profitable, rapidly growing company,
>> maybe half the size of Microsoft but growing at many
>> times Microsoft's rate. I don't think they do that by
>> "Losing a little money on each one and making it up with
>> high volume"

> Where have I implied anything of the sort? Losing money
> is not the same as a low margin. Are you putting words
> in my mouth or someone else's?

So turnabout isn't fair play?

> Sorry for your bad Mac experience. I'll never get over
> my awful Dell one : )

Did you have one?

dwgriffi

June 16th 09, 03:24 AM

On Jun 15, 10:08*pm, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
>
> And yet they still have only a tiny fractional market share. Apparently
> most consumers are immune from the propaganda and vote with
> their feet.

Such propaganda is just advertising, same as Sony, Wendy's and
everyone else do, including MS and Dell. Everybody pushes themselves
that way. Seen the MS propaganda lately? Same stuff.

> Even Apple themselves decided that Intel Architecture PC hardware
> was better value and performance than their proprietary PowerPC
> platform and switched to something that could compete with PCs.

Yup, that's true.

dwgriffi

June 16th 09, 03:32 AM

On Jun 15, 10:24*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

Jeez, Arny, I'm bowing out. Bait someone else.

Scott Dorsey

June 16th 09, 03:34 AM

dwgriffi > wrote:
>On Jun 15, 10:24=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>Jeez, Arny, I'm bowing out. Bait someone else.

I warned you.
This is like starting the whole "digital vs. analogue" debate again.
Just don't go there.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Nil

June 16th 09, 03:55 AM

On 15 Jun 2009, (hank alrich) wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> What I have followed is studies showing that if Wintel boxen are
> spec'd to match, they cost as much.

What "studies" are you referring to? References, please.

The results of my informal "study" are FAR from what you claim. Macs
seem to be way more expensive than equivalent WinTels.

Color me skeptical.

cjt

June 16th 09, 04:27 AM

Nil wrote:

> On 15 Jun 2009, (hank alrich) wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
>
>>What I have followed is studies showing that if Wintel boxen are
>>spec'd to match, they cost as much.
>
>
> What "studies" are you referring to? References, please.
>
> The results of my informal "study" are FAR from what you claim. Macs
> seem to be way more expensive than equivalent WinTels.
>
> Color me skeptical.

X86 boxes can be cost effective if you just keep Windows off of them.

hank alrich

June 16th 09, 04:36 AM

Steve King > wrote:

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
> | Richard Crowley > wrote:
> |
> | > An annoymous poster hiding behind the alis"dwgriffi" wrote from Google
> Land
> | > ...
> | > > "Arny Krueger" wrote:
> | > > > The "Apple Tax" is generally defined as the difference between an
> Apple
> | > > > computer with a given hardware configuration, and a computer with a
> | > > > comparable hardware configuration from say, Dell or HP.
> | > > >
> | > > > Last time I looked, the "Apple tax" was about 100% - the Apple cost
> | > > > about
> | > > > twice the price of the Dell.
> | > >
> | > > Never been the case if you're in fact comparing comparable hardware
> | > > and software. Urban legend. When did you look, and what models?
> | > > Comparing a crappy bottom of the line $600 Dell to a MacBookPro is
> | > > flawed, so please clear this up.
> | >
> | > And the major flaw is that you can barely get a case for your Mac
> | > for $600. You certainly can't get any kind of Apple notebook for
> | > that kind of price.
> |
> | You didn't answer his question. Either put up or shut up.
> |
> | --
> | ha
> | shut up and play your guitar
>
> The fact is mine is bigger than yours whatever we're talking about!! That's
> just the way it is. Get used to it.
>
> Steve King

LOL!

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

Nil

June 16th 09, 04:37 AM

On 15 Jun 2009, cjt > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> X86 boxes can be cost effective if you just keep Windows off of
> them.

That sounds like yet more glib and meaningless nonsense. My Windows
boxes have always been extremely cost-effective. The hardware is
inexpensive, the software is plentiful and inexpensive, they have been
stable and low-maintenance, and I've gotten 5 - 10 years productive
life out of each of them. I guess that's not your idea of "cost-
effective", but it's mine.

Jon

June 16th 09, 04:57 AM

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

> Last time I looked, the "Apple tax" was about 100% - the Apple cost about
> twice the price of the Dell.

When I got my most recent Mac Pro, I tried seeing what the "equivalent"
Dell would cost.

Couldn't do it -- they didn't have a model with the same power as this
Mac.

--
"Coloured and animated, the concerts and spectacles are as many
invitations to discover the universes of musicians and artists
who tint with happiness our reality."

Sean[_5_]

June 16th 09, 05:23 AM

Richard Crowley wrote:

> And yet they still have only a tiny fractional market share. Apparently
> most consumers are immune from the propaganda and vote with
> their feet.

So far I've managed to resist the propaganda put out by BMW, Mercedes,
and Lexus. Who needs cool design, comfort and performance? Those are for
suckers.

Monty Parts

June 16th 09, 05:59 AM

Thomas Reinhardt wrote:
> I'm thinking of replacing this box soon and am wondering what you, the
> people who make a living with these tools, might suggest:

Apples are great fun to play and work on IMO. And with VMware you can
run Windows programs on a MAC. So you get the best of all worlds I
think.

Windows PC's are enormous bang for the bucks these days. Dollar for
dollar spent a PC will give you considerably more gear for your money.
The function exactly the same as Mac's...you plug in, your turn it on,
you open an app, you start working.<G>

PN

Richard Crowley

June 16th 09, 07:45 AM

Sean wrote:
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
>> And yet they still have only a tiny fractional market share.
>> Apparently most consumers are immune from the propaganda and vote
>> with their feet.
>
> So far I've managed to resist the propaganda put out by BMW, Mercedes,
> and Lexus. Who needs cool design, comfort and performance? Those are
> for suckers.

Exactly. If you are in the market to buy transportation, the BMWs,
Mercedes, Lexus models are vast overkill. OTOH, if you are buying
a "lifestyle experience" and an expression of your affluence, then go
for the high-price spread. It doesn't get you there any faster (because
of the speed limits, etc.) but you'll look a lot better. I couldn't think
of a better analagy for buying a Mac computer.

Meindert Sprang

June 16th 09, 07:58 AM

"dwgriffi" > wrote in message
...
>
> Never been the case if you're in fact comparing comparable hardware
> and software. Urban legend. When did you look, and what models?
> Comparing a crappy bottom of the line $600 Dell to a MacBookPro is
> flawed, so please clear this up.

Indeed. At home, we have 4 Windows laptops floating around and one Macbook
Pro. Alle the "ordinary" laptops ranging from $500 to $800 start to show bad
connections to the internal harddisks and other mechanical flaws like screws
that become loose, broken USB connectors etc. These failures are all caused
by the flakey housing designs of cheap laptops. These laptops obviously
cannot stand the typical way of picking up a laptop: at the front edges. Now
compare this to a solid aluminium framed Macbook Pro....

That's just the hardware side of things. Connecting all sorts of video and
audio equipment to a windozw laptop always requires fiddling around with
drivers. So far, all these things have run out of the box on my Macbook.

Oh and last but not least: my 14 year old daughter used my Macbook for some
time. When I bought here a windoze laptop after half a year or so, the came
back the same day, asking for the Macbook again. "C'mon daddy, on that
macbook, everything simply works"....

Meindert

Meindert Sprang

June 16th 09, 08:03 AM

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> Hardware: single source = higher prices for equal performance/features
> Apple has taken various agressive, active measures against any 3rd
> party that dared compete with them for hardware. Ranging from legal
> actions to buying the company and disbanding it. One can make several
> good arguments why a single source is a good thing, but competition,
> price, cost/perormance are not among them.

Mmm.... isn't this exacty what Micro$oft does too?

Meindert

Arny Krueger

June 16th 09, 11:22 AM

"Jon" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote:
>
>> Last time I looked, the "Apple tax" was about 100% - the
>> Apple cost about twice the price of the Dell.
>
> When I got my most recent Mac Pro, I tried seeing what
> the "equivalent" Dell would cost.
>
> Couldn't do it -- they didn't have a model with the same
> power as this Mac.

Prove it. Give me some numbers, gigs, megs, mips.

I suspect the power differential was "Apple power" - the intangible that
motivates people to spend all that extra money on Apple hardware.

Or perhaps, you're making an excluded middle argument, and picking some
utter top-of-the line powerhouse.

In general, it isn't true, and the way that CPU power/price skyrockets in
general, its a bad investment unless you utterly need it.

Arny Krueger

June 16th 09, 11:35 AM

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message

> Even Apple themselves decided that Intel Architecture PC
> hardware was better value and performance than their proprietary
> PowerPC platform and switched to something that could
> compete with PCs.

This, I believe is a testimonial to the high volume production that is
required to pay incredibly high development costs for very complex,
sophisticated chips at a reasonable piece price.

I hadn't been keeping up, and was just recently shocked to find that modern
PC processors are headed into the billion transistors per chip range. I can
still remember the slow crawl to a million transistors per chip. What the
hey - its only 1,000 times more complexity in less than 20 years.

Arny Krueger

June 16th 09, 11:40 AM

"Sean" > wrote in message
news:t7FZl.32278$PH1.6404@edtnps82

> So far I've managed to resist the propaganda put out by
> BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus. Who needs cool design, comfort
> and performance? Those are for suckers.

In reality, the difference is more subtle than you say. What BMW, Mercedes,
and Lexus provide is something that is merely incrementally cooler - a
modern plain vanilla automobile can be pretty cool. Remember that a low end
Lexus is just a high end Toyota. Neither Mercedes nor BMW know how to make
a car audio system that sounds as good as you find in the base system of
certain US mid-range sedans.

Arny Krueger

June 16th 09, 11:48 AM

"Nil" > wrote in message

> On 15 Jun 2009, cjt > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
>> X86 boxes can be cost effective if you just keep Windows
>> off of them.
>
> That sounds like yet more glib and meaningless nonsense.

It's political posturing, plain and simple. Note the lack of relevant facts
and figures. Try to pin these guys down and they bail on the discussion.

> My Windows boxes have always been extremely
> cost-effective. The hardware is inexpensive, the software
> is plentiful and inexpensive, they have been stable and
> low-maintenance, and I've gotten 5 - 10 years productive
> life out of each of them. I guess that's not your idea of
> "cost- effective", but it's mine.

BTW, can anybody point me to a store that sells a 64 bit version of the Mac
OS that is already in its third generation? Second generation? First
generation? Announced but not yet delivered? In Beta?

This is no joke. I've been running Adobe Premiere ele 4 on an 8 gig RAM 64
bit Windows 7 system. This has turned out to be an exciting example of how
64 bit hardware and system software can enhance the operation of even econo
32 bit software, if the 32 bit software is demanding enough.

Richard Crowley

June 16th 09, 02:59 PM

Meindert Sprang wrote:
> "Richard Crowley" wrote...
>> Hardware: single source = higher prices for equal
>> performance/features Apple has taken various agressive, active
>> measures against any 3rd party that dared compete with them for
>> hardware. Ranging from legal actions to buying the company and
>> disbanding it. One can make several good arguments why a single
>> source is a good thing, but competition, price, cost/perormance are
>> not among them.
>
> Mmm.... isn't this exacty what Micro$oft does too?

And yet there are 10 (100?) of everything (software, hardware,etc.)
in PC-land for every equivalent in Macworld. Rather shoots down
that argument.

dwgriffi

June 16th 09, 03:40 PM

On Jun 16, 9:59*am, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
> Meindert Sprang wrote:
> > "Richard Crowley" wrote...
> >> One can make several good arguments why a single
> >> source is a good thing, but competition, price, cost/perormance are
> >> not among them.
>
> > Mmm.... isn't this exacty what Micro$oft does too?
>
> And yet there are 10 (100?) of everything (software, hardware,etc.)
> in PC-land for every equivalent in Macworld. *Rather shoots down
> that argument.

But that's only coming from the vendors' point of view. The reality
is that if I'm choosing a platform all I need are the tools I want. I
ignore the hundreds of other sometimes pointless other options. .More
choices doesn't equal superior, just more choices, and personally I
can do without the endless crappy audio and photography options other
than what I use. 400 more GPS map editors doesn't do anything for me.

Nikon and Canon users chide Pentax owners for having less choices in
lenses, but everything one needs exists, just not 10 flavors of each
type.

Making a big deal about the price difference in any format choice is
pointless if you save a few hundred if it's not the right tool for
you, and that's all we're talking about, not thousands.

Scott Dorsey

June 16th 09, 03:44 PM

dwgriffi > wrote:
>
>Nikon and Canon users chide Pentax owners for having less choices in
>lenses, but everything one needs exists, just not 10 flavors of each
>type.

Huh? There's more neat old stuff available in Universal Screw Mount for
Pentax than any other mount out there (and those lenses will adapt to K mount).

In fact, because the flange depth on the Nikon lenses is so deep and the
flange depth on the Pentax is so shallow, you can put Nikon lenses on a
Pentax without any problem, but you can't go the other way around. (You
lose all the electronic crap in the process but that's no worry).

>Making a big deal about the price difference in any format choice is
>pointless if you save a few hundred if it's not the right tool for
>you, and that's all we're talking about, not thousands.

In the end it all comes down to whether it does the job you need and
does it the way you want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

dwgriffi

June 16th 09, 04:01 PM

On Jun 16, 10:44*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> dwgriffi > wrote:
>
> >Nikon and Canon users chide Pentax owners for having less choices in
> >lenses, but everything one needs exists, just not 10 flavors of each
> >type.
>
> Huh? *There's more neat old stuff available in Universal Screw Mount for
> Pentax than any other mount out there (and those lenses will adapt to K mount).

Right, of course. I was just speaking of off the shelf use to the
public at large, not so much the savvy user with the necessary
adapters. Same as Windows and Mac can be used interchangeably on
your CPU but it takes more than what comes in the box.

> In fact, because the flange depth on the Nikon lenses is so deep and the
> flange depth on the Pentax is so shallow, you can put Nikon lenses on a
> Pentax without any problem, but you can't go the other way around. *(You
> lose all the electronic crap in the process but that's no worry).

Well, losing the electronic crap makes it quite not the same for many,
but yep, it fits and works. But that's only if you happened to have
one. My point was that it's not such an advantage to choose from 30
tools for a single job instead of from 3 from the top three
manufacturers. The rest is just water cooler conversation.

sslusser

June 16th 09, 04:11 PM

On Jun 14, 9:07 pm, Thomas Reinhardt > wrote:
> I haven't read this group in a while, so I'm not sure if this question is
> appropriate, or if it has been beaten to death in another thread, but
> here goes:
>
> I have an old Windows machine that I've used to make decent recordings.
> It hosts Cubase, using Native Instruments, etc. A lot of VST, and very
> little live (Audio) load.
>
> I'm thinking of replacing this box soon and am wondering what you, the
> people who make a living with these tools, might suggest:

Tom,

I am a longtime (1987) Mac user. I will get that out of the way first!

I also make at least some of my living using these tools. What I
prefer, what I like and what I evangelize comes second to what I need
to get the job done. If you could look at my workspace you would see a
Mac, and two PCs. The Mac runs Logic and Pro Tools, depending on the
job and PC1 runs Windows (Cubase and Reason) and PC2 runs Ubuntu
Studio (Linux with Ardour and Hydrogen). They all run VSTs, some
better than others.

The point is that if you want to make some music you want your
equipment to facilitate this not get in your way. If you want to run
Reason and that is your main app, then get the best hardware that you
can afford. If you can't live without Logic then a Mac is your best
bet. If you don't have a lot of cash, download Ubuntu Studio (or any
of the other flavors of Linux with a bent toward audio production) and
breathe new life into your old hardware for next to nothing.

All of that being said, MY experience with all three of these is that
when it comes to downtime, I have the most trouble with the Windows
OS. The Dell hardware that it runs on has been great (It is the exact
same hardware as the Ubuntu system) and was very cost effective. The
Microsoft OS (XP SP3) however is sporadically a pain in the side. The
Mac runs very well though I do see some weird things when I get tooooo
much midi going on.

The rest is all zealotry. Not that zealotry is bad. Passion for one
thing or another is always a good thing. Just don't let zealotry make
your decisions for you.

Let the battle resume ....

Richard Crowley

June 16th 09, 04:24 PM

"Sean" wrote ...
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
>> And yet they still have only a tiny fractional market share. Apparently
>> most consumers are immune from the propaganda and vote with
>> their feet.
>
> So far I've managed to resist the propaganda put out by BMW, Mercedes, and
> Lexus. Who needs cool design, comfort and performance? Those are for
> suckers.

Indeed. If you ego requires being seen driving a luxury car,
then you must spend the $$$$. Most of us have more practical
needs.

Richard Crowley

June 16th 09, 04:27 PM

"dwgriffi" > wrote...
> Such propaganda is just advertising, same as Sony, Wendy's and
> everyone else do, including MS and Dell. Everybody pushes themselves
> that way. Seen the MS propaganda lately? Same stuff.

Then if the propoganda is a wash, the final indicator falls to
market share which speaks for itself.

Sean[_5_]

June 16th 09, 04:52 PM

Richard Crowley wrote:
> Sean wrote:
>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>
>>> And yet they still have only a tiny fractional market share.
>>> Apparently most consumers are immune from the propaganda and vote
>>> with their feet.
>> So far I've managed to resist the propaganda put out by BMW, Mercedes,
>> and Lexus. Who needs cool design, comfort and performance? Those are
>> for suckers.
>
> Exactly. If you are in the market to buy transportation, the BMWs,
> Mercedes, Lexus models are vast overkill. OTOH, if you are buying
> a "lifestyle experience" and an expression of your affluence, then go
> for the high-price spread. It doesn't get you there any faster (because
> of the speed limits, etc.) but you'll look a lot better. I couldn't think
> of a better analagy for buying a Mac computer.
>
>

And the strange thing is, I only use Macs.

Ach, ah'm so byootiful!

sslusser

June 16th 09, 04:52 PM

On Jun 16, 2:45*am, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
> Sean wrote:
> > Richard Crowley wrote:
>
> >> And yet they still have only a tiny fractional market share.
> >> Apparently most consumers are immune from the propaganda and vote
> >> with their feet.
>
> > So far I've managed to resist the propaganda put out by BMW, Mercedes,
> > and Lexus. Who needs cool design, comfort and performance? Those are
> > for suckers.
>
> Exactly. If you are in the market to buy transportation, the BMWs,
> Mercedes, Lexus models are vast overkill. OTOH, if you are buying
> a "lifestyle experience" and an expression of your affluence, then go
> for the high-price spread. It doesn't get you there any faster (because
> of the speed limits, etc.) but you'll look a lot better. I couldn't think
> of a better analagy for buying a Mac computer.

So, are saying that quality of material, aesthetics and
thoughtfulness of design are all meaningless? Aren't we as musicians,
engineers and artist in the business of these things?

dwgriffi

June 16th 09, 04:54 PM

On Jun 16, 11:27*am, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
> "dwgriffi" > wrote...
> > Such propaganda is just advertising, same as Sony, Wendy's and
> > everyone else do, including MS and Dell. *Everybody pushes themselves
> > that way. *Seen the MS propaganda lately? * Same stuff.
>
> Then if the propoganda is a wash, the final indicator falls to
> market share which speaks for itself.

Hmmmm. This isn't the same line the anti-Digidesign crowd uses. : )

Sean[_5_]

June 16th 09, 04:57 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Sean" > wrote in message
> news:t7FZl.32278$PH1.6404@edtnps82
>
>> So far I've managed to resist the propaganda put out by
>> BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus. Who needs cool design, comfort
>> and performance? Those are for suckers.
>
> In reality, the difference is more subtle than you say. What BMW, Mercedes,
> and Lexus provide is something that is merely incrementally cooler - a
> modern plain vanilla automobile can be pretty cool. Remember that a low end
> Lexus is just a high end Toyota. Neither Mercedes nor BMW know how to make
> a car audio system that sounds as good as you find in the base system of
> certain US mid-range sedans.
>
>

So what I'm actually driving is just a step below a low-end Lexus? Cool!

When I lived in Japan in 80s and early 90s, some folks referred to BMWs
as "Roppongi Corolla." (Roppongi is a high-end section of Tokyo where
the movie stars and such types rush around paying thousands of dollars
for dinner.)

Richard Crowley

June 16th 09, 05:25 PM

sslusser wrote:
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>> Sean wrote:
>>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>
>>>> And yet they still have only a tiny fractional market share.
>>>> Apparently most consumers are immune from the propaganda and vote
>>>> with their feet.
>>
>>> So far I've managed to resist the propaganda put out by BMW,
>>> Mercedes, and Lexus. Who needs cool design, comfort and
>>> performance? Those are for suckers.
>>
>> Exactly. If you are in the market to buy transportation, the BMWs,
>> Mercedes, Lexus models are vast overkill. OTOH, if you are buying
>> a "lifestyle experience" and an expression of your affluence, then go
>> for the high-price spread. It doesn't get you there any faster
>> (because of the speed limits, etc.) but you'll look a lot better. I
>> couldn't think of a better analagy for buying a Mac computer.
>
> So, are saying that quality of material, aesthetics and
> thoughtfulness of design are all meaningless? Aren't we as musicians,
> engineers and artist in the business of these things?

It comes back to what you are buying a vehicle (or a computer,
or a musical instrument, for that matter) for. If you need a car
(computer/instrument, etc.) that is asthetically pleasing, then you
are consiously allocating some portion of your investment for art
vs. practicality. Some people buy fancy cushioned, patterened,
colored, scented toilet paper, too.

Richard Crowley

June 16th 09, 05:26 PM

Sean wrote:
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> Sean wrote:
>>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>>
>>>> And yet they still have only a tiny fractional market share.
>>>> Apparently most consumers are immune from the propaganda and vote
>>>> with their feet.
>>> So far I've managed to resist the propaganda put out by BMW,
>>> Mercedes, and Lexus. Who needs cool design, comfort and
>>> performance? Those are for suckers.
>>
>> Exactly. If you are in the market to buy transportation, the BMWs,
>> Mercedes, Lexus models are vast overkill. OTOH, if you are buying
>> a "lifestyle experience" and an expression of your affluence, then go
>> for the high-price spread. It doesn't get you there any faster
>> (because of the speed limits, etc.) but you'll look a lot better. I
>> couldn't think of a better analagy for buying a Mac computer.
>>
>>
>
> And the strange thing is, I only use Macs.
>
> Ach, ah'm so byootiful!

And cool, as well. Apparently.

Scott Dorsey

June 16th 09, 05:41 PM

Richard Crowley > wrote:
>"Sean" wrote ...
>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>
>>> And yet they still have only a tiny fractional market share. Apparently
>>> most consumers are immune from the propaganda and vote with
>>> their feet.
>>
>> So far I've managed to resist the propaganda put out by BMW, Mercedes, and
>> Lexus. Who needs cool design, comfort and performance? Those are for
>> suckers.
>
>Indeed. If you ego requires being seen driving a luxury car,
>then you must spend the $$$$. Most of us have more practical
>needs.

Dunno, I drive a 30-year-old BMW. The dealer still has parts available,
even stuff like the interior trim. It's got a little over 300,000 miles
on it with no engine work so far. As far as total cost of ownership per
mile goes, I think it's done a lot better than most Japanese or American
cars. It's a fun car to work on; parts that on an American car would be
stamped are die-cast, and parts that on an American car would be die-cast
are machined.

Sadly, BMW will sell you a stripped-down model that is still built like
that, without all the goofy features... but they will only sell it in Europe
and not the US. They claim American buyers all want froofy stuff. Maybe
they're right.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

hank alrich

June 16th 09, 05:47 PM

Richard Crowley > wrote:

> "dwgriffi" > wrote...
> > Such propaganda is just advertising, same as Sony, Wendy's and
> > everyone else do, including MS and Dell. Everybody pushes themselves
> > that way. Seen the MS propaganda lately? Same stuff.
>
> Then if the propoganda is a wash, the final indicator falls to
> market share which speaks for itself.

There is no better food on Earth than that offered by McDoanlds.

--
ha
yeah, right

Jon

June 16th 09, 05:52 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Prove it. Give me some numbers, gigs, megs, mips.

It's been too long. I looked at the time for a Dell with 2 dual-core
3gHz Xeon processors, a 750-gig drive, and 5 gigs of RAM, and they
didn't have one, is all.

The rest of this ... you clearly prefer the fight to any rational
discussion, but I don't.

--
"Coloured and animated, the concerts and spectacles are as many
invitations to discover the universes of musicians and artists
who tint with happiness our reality."

Laurence Payne[_2_]

June 16th 09, 06:11 PM

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:52:36 -0700 (PDT), sslusser
> wrote:

>So, are saying that quality of material, aesthetics and
>thoughtfulness of design are all meaningless? Aren't we as musicians,
>engineers and artist in the business of these things?

Once you're in an application, it's only small cosmetic details that
tell you what platform you're on anyway. I don't like eye candy. I
can turn it off on a PC. I assume I could on a Mac too? Like those
ballooning icons on whatever Mac calls the taskbar? Annoying, but (I
presume) optional?

Laurence Payne[_2_]

June 16th 09, 06:17 PM

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:47:41 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>There is no better food on Earth than that offered by McDoanlds.

That, of course, is ********. Possibly literally.

But I have yet to find food better than that served, at very moderate
price, by my local workman's cafe. Sadly, I find it hard to enjoy
eating at more ostentatious establishments. It's just more money for
the same thing (if I'm lucky).

Scott Dorsey

June 16th 09, 06:47 PM

Laurence Payne > wrote:
>
>Once you're in an application, it's only small cosmetic details that
>tell you what platform you're on anyway. I don't like eye candy. I
>can turn it off on a PC. I assume I could on a Mac too? Like those
>ballooning icons on whatever Mac calls the taskbar? Annoying, but (I
>presume) optional?

All that stuff is configurable. In fact, weirdly, you can run OSX without
any windowing system at all and just have a command line....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Laurence Payne[_2_]

June 16th 09, 08:02 PM

On 16 Jun 2009 13:47:32 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>>Once you're in an application, it's only small cosmetic details that
>>tell you what platform you're on anyway. I don't like eye candy. I
>>can turn it off on a PC. I assume I could on a Mac too? Like those
>>ballooning icons on whatever Mac calls the taskbar? Annoying, but (I
>>presume) optional?
>
>All that stuff is configurable. In fact, weirdly, you can run OSX without
>any windowing system at all and just have a command line....

And if you ask a Mac enthusiast what he likes about the platform,
he'll very likely just cite the eye candy :-)

Incidentally, how DO you turn off those looming icons? A friend
sitting next to me has a Mac laptop and doesn't know how. But they
irritate him too.

hank alrich

June 16th 09, 08:58 PM

Laurence Payne > wrote:

> On 16 Jun 2009 13:47:32 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >>Once you're in an application, it's only small cosmetic details that
> >>tell you what platform you're on anyway. I don't like eye candy. I
> >>can turn it off on a PC. I assume I could on a Mac too? Like those
> >>ballooning icons on whatever Mac calls the taskbar? Annoying, but (I
> >>presume) optional?
> >
> >All that stuff is configurable. In fact, weirdly, you can run OSX without
> >any windowing system at all and just have a command line....
>
> And if you ask a Mac enthusiast what he likes about the platform,
> he'll very likely just cite the eye candy :-)
>
> Incidentally, how DO you turn off those looming icons? A friend
> sitting next to me has a Mac laptop and doesn't know how. But they
> irritate him too.

He cannot have invested ten minutes setting his preferences. Thing is,
even a Mac can't read the user's mind. <g>

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

Laurence Payne[_2_]

June 16th 09, 09:13 PM

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:58:57 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>> Incidentally, how DO you turn off those looming icons? A friend
>> sitting next to me has a Mac laptop and doesn't know how. But they
>> irritate him too.
>
>He cannot have invested ten minutes setting his preferences. Thing is,
>even a Mac can't read the user's mind. <g>

But, how? He's seriously asking. Remember, this is a Mac user. He's
not tecchie.

Arny Krueger

June 16th 09, 09:17 PM

"Jon" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Prove it. Give me some numbers, gigs, megs, mips.
>
> It's been too long. I looked at the time for a Dell with
> 2 dual-core 3gHz Xeon processors, a 750-gig drive, and 5
> gigs of RAM, and they didn't have one, is all.

You mean like the Dell Poweredge 2650?

http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/products/pedge/en/2650_specs.pdf

Up to two Intel® Xeon™ processors at 2.0GHz, 2.4GHz, 2.8GHz, 3.06 GHz and

3.2GHz with hyper-threading support

256MB - 12GB PC266 ECC DDR SDRAM

Six DIMM sockets on system board configurable for Spare Bank support

> The rest of this ... you clearly prefer the fight to any
> rational discussion, but I don't.

What you're doing now is called "poisoning the well" and its what people do
when they can't stand behind their prior claims.

dwgriffi

June 16th 09, 09:23 PM

On Jun 16, 12:47*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
> Richard Crowley > wrote:
> > "dwgriffi" > wrote...
> > > Such propaganda is just advertising, same as Sony, Wendy's and
> > > everyone else do, including MS and Dell. *Everybody pushes themselves
> > > that way. *Seen the MS propaganda lately? * Same stuff.
>
> > Then if the propoganda is a wash, the final indicator falls to
> > market share which speaks for itself.
>
> There is no better food on Earth than that offered by McDoanlds.

Can't argue with that. No, wait...

hank alrich

June 16th 09, 09:49 PM

Laurence Payne > wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:58:57 -0700, (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
> >> Incidentally, how DO you turn off those looming icons? A friend
> >> sitting next to me has a Mac laptop and doesn't know how. But they
> >> irritate him too.
> >
> >He cannot have invested ten minutes setting his preferences. Thing is,
> >even a Mac can't read the user's mind. <g>
>
> But, how?

Apple menu (top left) > System Preferences > Dock

> He's seriously asking. Remember, this is a Mac user.

I've a son-in-law, a programmer managing a team of those, for a company
with customers like Google, who had his company buy him a Mac tower last
year because it ran _Windows_ faster than any Dell they had been able to
spec, and they had been through several. It's not as if these cats have
no idea what they are doing.

When I visit I see a large iMac running Windows, or Linux, or OSX as he
chooses.

This weekend he showed me his new Dell netbook, bought for $200, running
OSX via Hackintosh. He had $300 total into it.

Pretty neat. He's a Mac user...

> He's not tecchie.

Your friend is intellectually lazy. This **** is silly easy to manage.
My wife, far as we might get from techie, manages it no problem.

Further, loads of info is available for anyone willing to read and
learn.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

Arny Krueger

June 16th 09, 09:50 PM

"sslusser" > wrote in message

> On Jun 16, 2:45 am, "Richard Crowley"
> > wrote:
>> Sean wrote:
>>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>
>>>> And yet they still have only a tiny fractional market
>>>> share. Apparently most consumers are immune from the
>>>> propaganda and vote with their feet.
>>
>>> So far I've managed to resist the propaganda put out by
>>> BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus. Who needs cool design,
>>> comfort and performance? Those are for suckers.
>>
>> Exactly. If you are in the market to buy transportation,
>> the BMWs, Mercedes, Lexus models are vast overkill.
>> OTOH, if you are buying
>> a "lifestyle experience" and an expression of your
>> affluence, then go for the high-price spread. It doesn't
>> get you there any faster (because of the speed limits,
>> etc.) but you'll look a lot better. I couldn't think of
>> a better analagy for buying a Mac computer.
>
> So, are saying that quality of material, aesthetics and
> thoughtfulness of design are all meaningless?

Of course he isn't saying that. He is saying that mid-priced products very
often provide quite a bit of that, but if you pay much more, you don't get
much more.

> Aren't we
> as musicians, engineers and artist in the business of
> these things?

Our leading tangible exports are farm products. In the world market, we get
points for low costs and acceptable performance.

Laurence Payne[_2_]

June 16th 09, 10:49 PM

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:49:13 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Pretty neat. He's a Mac user...
>
>> He's not tecchie.
>
>Your friend is intellectually lazy. This **** is silly easy to manage.
>My wife, far as we might get from techie, manages it no problem.
>
>Further, loads of info is available for anyone willing to read and
>learn.

Yeah, I know! He's frightened of techno stuff and manuals. I think
someone told him Macs were cuddly and he wouldn't have to do any
setting up - it would "just work". I'm resisting learning Mac so I
can support him :-)

I'll tell him how to do it. Thanks.

trackwise

June 16th 09, 10:55 PM

On Jun 14, 9:07*pm, Thomas Reinhardt > wrote:
...............
>
> I'm thinking of replacing this box soon and am wondering what you, the
> people who make a living with these tools, might suggest:
>
........................

I have never had a prospective client inquire about which platform(s)
we're using.

www.fullhouseny.com

Richard Crowley

June 16th 09, 10:57 PM

"trackwise" wrote ...
> Thomas Reinhardt wrote:
>>
>> I'm thinking of replacing this box soon and am wondering what you, the
>> people who make a living with these tools, might suggest:
>>
>
>I have never had a prospective client inquire about which platform(s)
>we're using.

He never answered the question WHY, either.

hank alrich

June 16th 09, 11:18 PM

Laurence Payne > wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:49:13 -0700, (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
> >Pretty neat. He's a Mac user...
> >
> >> He's not tecchie.
> >
> >Your friend is intellectually lazy. This **** is silly easy to manage.
> >My wife, far as we might get from techie, manages it no problem.
> >
> >Further, loads of info is available for anyone willing to read and
> >learn.
>
> Yeah, I know! He's frightened of techno stuff and manuals. I think
> someone told him Macs were cuddly and he wouldn't have to do any
> setting up - it would "just work". I'm resisting learning Mac so I
> can support him :-)
>
> I'll tell him how to do it. Thanks.

Have him get one of Robin Williams' books. She has a kinda cuddly style.
<g>

www.macinstruct.com/tutorama/robin/

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

hank alrich

June 17th 09, 12:27 AM

Brian L. McCarty lied, again:

> Path:
> uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!postnews.google.com!news2.google.com!new s1.goog
> le.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.hi
> ghwinds-media.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.c om!209.197.12.21
> 9.MISMATCH!post01.iad!news.buzzardnews.com!not-for-mail User-Agent:
> Microsoft-Entourage/12.13.0.080930 Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:17:33 +1000
> Subject: Re: Macintosh or Windows From: Soundhaspriority
> > Newsgroups:
> rec.audio.pro,rec.arts.movies.production.sound,aus .hi-fi,alt.audio.pro.liv
> e-sound Message-ID: > Thread-Topic:
> Macintosh or Windows Thread-Index: Acnu0D69QwIs+yTQx0WBSLoBUozd2Q==
> References: > Mime-version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding:
> 7bit Lines: 73

>X-Complaints-
>To: Xref: uni-berlin.de
> rec.audio.pro:1354859 rec.arts.movies.production.sound:131719
> aus.hi-fi:139409 alt.audio.pro.live-sound:192442

because he lives as a parasite.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

Jon

June 17th 09, 05:27 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/products/pedge/en/2650_specs.pdf

Wasn't listed on their web site at the time I bought this machine --
which was over two years ago.

--
"Coloured and animated, the concerts and spectacles are as many
invitations to discover the universes of musicians and artists
who tint with happiness our reality."

Jon

June 17th 09, 05:29 AM

In article >,
Laurence Payne > wrote:

> Incidentally, how DO you turn off those looming icons?

Go to the System Preferences, choose the Dock control panel, and uncheck
"magnification."

--
"Coloured and animated, the concerts and spectacles are as many
invitations to discover the universes of musicians and artists
who tint with happiness our reality."

Sean[_5_]

June 17th 09, 06:17 AM

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:58:57 -0700, (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
>>> Incidentally, how DO you turn off those looming icons? A friend
>>> sitting next to me has a Mac laptop and doesn't know how. But they
>>> irritate him too.
>> He cannot have invested ten minutes setting his preferences. Thing is,
>> even a Mac can't read the user's mind. <g>
>
> But, how? He's seriously asking. Remember, this is a Mac user. He's
> not tecchie.

The apple menu (the icon in the top left corner of the screen). The item
called "Dock." He can tell it what he wants it to do there.

david correia

June 17th 09, 06:47 AM

As a long time studio owner and a pro audio engineer lemme say I love
Macs.

I still use an old 8500 for capturing stereo mixes and burning master
CD's. And a G4 for Protools HD. Both continue to be solid as a rock
while churning out hundreds of thousands of $ of sessions, performances
and data that my ass is totally responsible for.

I find them pretty ****ing invaluable.

David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

Sylvain Robitaille

June 17th 09, 07:22 AM

Thomas Reinhardt wrote:

> I have an old Windows machine that I've used to make decent recordings.
> It hosts Cubase, using Native Instruments, etc. A lot of VST, and very
> little live (Audio) load.
>
> I'm thinking of replacing this box soon and am wondering what you, the
> people who make a living with these tools, might suggest: ...

Question 1: if the current system is serving its purpose suitably, why
replace it? You've already said that you make decent recordings on this
system, with little load. It seems to me you might want to consider
whether it's really time to replace it yet.

Note 1: I don't make a living in audio, though I did (live audio) in
a previous lifetime. I do, however, now make my living with computers
and software, and still dabble in (recorded) audio.

Note 2: I have strong biases against commercial, proprietary software,
and these biases are likely to colour my response. Others may be able to
respond better from a position of specific experience with the software
packages you're contemplating.

> Buying another Windoze box (if so, wait until Windows 7?), staying with
> old Cubase and a host of VST plugs;

I'm not sure you'd want to count on your current DAW software (and
friends) running on an as yet unproven version of Windows. I'd be
nervous about that in your place, but see my note 2 above ...

> Buying a Macintosh, running Logic, Reason, and rewiring the VST plugs?

If you think that reworking your workflow isn't going to be completely
disruptive, and there isn't any chance that you would lose access to
data from sessions you've already done (I don't know about the
interoperability between the software you're currently using, and those
you're thinking about to go with a Mac), it's certainly worth giving
some serious thought to. However, see again my note 2 above, and
understand that this isn't an option I'd pursue myself ...

> Doing something insane such as trying to use this Linux box to produce
> decent quality recordings?

It isn't all that insane, really, but much depends on your own
experience and level of comfort, both on the audio side and on the
software side. It also involves the potential change in workflow and
software interoperability questions I point out above in response to
whether you might switch to a Mac system. If you change software at all,
you're going to have some disruption.

Certainly many very decent quality recordings have been done with
open-source software on Linux (and on commercial, proprietary OS)
systems. You might find an existing distribution suits your needs (some
to examine are Ubuntu-Studio and Planet CCRMA from Stanford University,
but there are also others worth looking into), or you might prefer to
custom-make your system starting from an established Linux distribution.
Much will depend on where you can afford to spend your efforts (dealing
with limitations or demands of a pre-configured system, versus creating
your own custom system ...)

On the other hand, if you need a system that you can just install
and start working with (perhaps after taking some time to learn the
intricacies of different software than you've already used), you might
be better to stick with systems you already know, or at least with the
prepackaged Linux music-software distributions I mentioned above.

> I appreciate any time and suggestions ...

I'll describe my own, ever-evolving system (as it currently stands),
with which I've made some rather decent recordings, but please be sure
to read my note1 above ...

Hardware:

- 2GHz AthlonX2
- 2GB ram
- fast (7200rpm? I think that's it ...) SATA hard drive.
- RME DSP9652
- ADAT decks (running at 48KHz) as converters
- direct-outs from mixing desk as pre-amps

Software:

- Linux (Slamd64)
- Ardour (DAW)
- LADSPA (plugins for signal processing)
- Jamin (mastering plugin)
- audacity (mostly used for editing individual recordings)
- a few others (such as an RTA package that works quite well ...)

I'm not winning any Grammys (or even Junos) any time soon, but my
recordings are certainly competent, and different software isn't likely to
bring awards and accolades either. By focusing my efforts on the software
I actually use, I've been able to build a system that works quite well.
By not using proprietary commercial software I'm not only saving money
(which I can then use for expanding hardware), but I'm also ensuring
that I can always have access to my data (the storage formats are openly
documented; not proprietary) whether I upgrade to newer versions of the
same software or switch to different software at a later time.

The real benefit of moving to open-source software, even if it does mean
some temporary disruption of workflow, is that you cease to be dependant
on the whim of a software vendor regarding their products. Commercial
products come and go, and new versions aren't always able to use data
stored from previous versions. It should be noted, of course, that the
more popular packages, such as those you currently use, or those you're
considering, are popular for good reason, and have been popular long
enough that their vendors would be crazy to suddenly cease production.

New operating system versions don't always run old versions of the
software, so if the software vendor does end-of-life a product, you
might have real problems. If an open-source software developper ceases
to improve a piece of software, the existing version can continue to be
compiled for newer operating system versions, thus keeping it available,
at least. If the software is suitably popular, others *will* pick up
its development, so your time investment working with a particular piece
of software isn't likely to be lost.

Without open-source software, I would still be buying SVHS tapes and
recording to those ... Your mileage may vary, of course. I hope
I've helped.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille

Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Arny Krueger

June 17th 09, 12:08 PM

"Jon" > wrote in message

> In article
> >, "Arny
> Krueger" > wrote:

>> http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/products/pedge/en/2650_specs.pdf

> Wasn't listed on their web site at the time I bought this
> machine -- which was over two years ago.

Look at the document's date. February 2004, which is over 5 years ago.

I did a little more searching and found out that 2650 new product reviews go
back several years before 2004. Right now, the only place you can get them
is on the used equipment market for boat anchor prices. You many not have
found it as a new product 2 years ago because it was already obsolete
technology by PC standards.

The fault may have been with your specs. Ironic that you could still find
technology that outdated in a Mac.

dwgriffi

June 17th 09, 02:35 PM

On Jun 15, 10:24*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > Sorry for your bad Mac experience. *I'll never get over
> > my awful Dell one * : *)
>
> Did you have one?

No, of course not, that's why I mention it. Well, there was the cheap
Inspiron desktop that arrived 3 years ago with the DVD not connected,
Windows had to be reinstalled daily during the first week due to what
turned out to be a faulty drive, USB fried in a week, the optional FW
port literally collapsed after a month, network kept resetting, case
door broke off. Dell support was non-existent, horrible. It spec'ed
out nicely for the cheap box I wanted, but the reality was that it was
slow as molasses, useless when it worked. Best use was as a
repository for drive for a G4 until it was deemed to ugly even for
that and tossed. Waste of time.

I laugh at the use of cheap Dells in any comparisons to other mid
range computers, because while their mid level and higher end stuff is
good, the cheap stuff is the worst garage around. The parts were
even barely fit properly in their slots. It wasn't in the same league
as a functioning computer. There was no quality control.

Sorry it took so long to post that. I was wading through the vast
enormity and specifics of the details you gave regarding your
daughter's Mac as you were poisoning the well. : )

Ty Ford

June 17th 09, 06:39 PM

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:51:36 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote
(in article >):

> Eventually, he went over the edge.

and remarkably, no one cared.

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

Jon

June 17th 09, 07:34 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Look at the document's date. February 2004, which is over 5 years ago.

What's your reason for arguing so? What skin off your nose is it if I
disagree with you -- or failed to find a document a couple years back?

I'd suggest consulting your personal brain-care specialist, myself.

--
"Coloured and animated, the concerts and spectacles are as many
invitations to discover the universes of musicians and artists
who tint with happiness our reality."

Phil W

June 18th 09, 03:35 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jon" > wrote in message
>
>
>> In article
>> >, "Arny
>> Krueger" > wrote:
>
>>> http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/products/pedge/en/2650_specs.pdf
>
>> Wasn't listed on their web site at the time I bought this
>> machine -- which was over two years ago.
>
> Look at the document's date. February 2004, which is over 5 years
> ago.
> I did a little more searching and found out that 2650 new product
> reviews go back several years before 2004. Right now, the only place
> you can get them is on the used equipment market for boat anchor
> prices. You many not have found it as a new product 2 years ago
> because it was already obsolete technology by PC standards.
>
> The fault may have been with your specs. Ironic that you could still
> find technology that outdated in a Mac.

Well, look at the specs of Intel-Macs and you´ll see that happen again and
again. They stick relatively long with not-so-new hardware (regarding the
CPU models), while charging prices that other manufacturers charge for newer
models...
Fortunately, they finally don´t put those stupid "combo drives"
(CD-R/DVD-ROM) into the cheap Macs anymore. We all know, that DVD-RW drives
cost next to nothing these days, but Apple still managed to put more than
outdated combo drives in their machines, even years after such drives were
available on the public market.

And these are only two examples.

IF I´d decide to spend so much money on hardware, I´d want current
technology and not something that was up-to-date maybe 1,5 years ago.
But that´s just my humble opinion.

If somebody has a good technical reason to use a Mac, that´s fine. If they
just think, they don´t have to know or understand anything about how
computers work, they should not use any kind of computer - regardless of the
OS and hardware. ;-) And yes, I´ve dealt with a lot of clueless Win
(ab)users, but the worst ones of those had better knowledge and
understanding than the average Mac users I´ve had to deal with. Many (not
all!!!) Mac users seem to think, that their machines can go beyond the
general technical rules of how computers work - e.g. they don´t need to care
about physical capabilities of hard disk drives or so... ;-)

Phil

Sylvain Robitaille

June 18th 09, 06:09 AM

Nil wrote (in what I believe was an otherwise well thought out post):

> I don't think there are any audio apps available for Linux that have
> the rich features that you find in the fanciest Windows and Mac
> programs.

Most of what you wrote I agree with, but on this point I have to ask: When
did you last check? I've used Digital Performer. I've used ProtoolsHD.
I use Ardour.

I'm not claiming that Ardour could replace either of the above packages
for everyone on every project, so please don't misunderstand me.
However, for probably greater than 85% of people using DAW software,
on probably greater than 85% of their projects, Ardour already has all
the features they're likely to actually use, and then some, at a price
that the commercial packages simply can't compete with.

I think that likely (at least by what I hear of "current" recordings)
the most widely used feature of commercial DAW software that isn't
(yet?) available with Ardour is an ability to host or interface with
some form of auto-tuning system. Then again, I haven't looked for that
very thoroughly or very recently. It's not a feature I would ever use,
but that may be just me.

I'm sure that the commercial DAW packages do have some (real) features
that Ardour can't compete with, though. For example, on the project
I worked in Digital Performer for, I was able to integrate MIDI tracks
with recorded audio. This is something that's being developped for a
future version of Ardour, but it isn't mature yet (or at least wasn't
the last time I checked). If this feature is important to the reader,
obviously then Ardour may not be the right package to consider, although
Rosegarden might be worth looking at. ... It's easier to consider
multiple software options when the software is freely available.

Maybe the real question, in response to what I quoted from you above,
is, Are there any features in the commercial DAW software packages that
the lack of in software available for Linux is a show-stopper? The
answer will certainly be different for everyone considering the
question. Some will find several show-stoppers, and some will find
none. There's really good software out there. Not all of it is
commercial.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille

Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott Dorsey

June 18th 09, 12:46 PM

Phil W > wrote:
>
>IF I´d decide to spend so much money on hardware, I´d want current
>technology and not something that was up-to-date maybe 1,5 years ago.
>But that´s just my humble opinion.

Nahh, I'd rather have something that has been shaken down carefully and
found to be very reliable, with as many bugs as possible worked out of it.
I suggest staying very far away from the state of the art because it is too
easy to get hurt.

But then, I don't have any computer in the control room here, just an Ampex.
It hasn't crashed yet.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Phil W

June 18th 09, 01:09 PM

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Phil W wrote:
>>
>> IF I´d decide to spend so much money on hardware, I´d want current
>> technology and not something that was up-to-date maybe 1,5 years ago.
>> But that´s just my humble opinion.
>
> Nahh, I'd rather have something that has been shaken down carefully
> and found to be very reliable, with as many bugs as possible worked
> out of it. I suggest staying very far away from the state of the art
> because it is too easy to get hurt.

I can see your point, but what I actually meant was the same CPU model just
with higher speed or a more current chipset. There are I don´t know how many
machines running without problems with current hardware. So, I don´t see a
practical reason to sell outdated products. And I would not bet a dime, that
Apple really takes the time to make sure that the components they use has
"as many bugs as possible worked out of it". For their prices, it should be
that way. But in the end, I think Apple is not any better than other
companies. They just manage to have a better reputation. Which is IMHO
rather based on what people want to believe, than on technical facts. If you
don´t know, what I mean, go to a "Mac Expo" or so - you´ll feel like at a
sect´s big meeting. Been there, done that...

> But then, I don't have any computer in the control room here, just an
> Ampex. It hasn't crashed yet.

If your Ampex crashes, you probably don´t wish to be under it for sure. ;-)

Jon

June 18th 09, 01:22 PM

Phil W wrote:

> in the end, I think Apple is not any better than other
> companies.

They do tend to get the design right on the third try, though. (My Power
Mac 8500 -- to add memory, you had to remove the cards and the CPU
duaghterboard, disconnect the motherboard and remove it from the
machine. Took about 15 minutes and required more than a little
kinesthetic control. The more recent Macs you can just open the side of
the machine, stick in the memory, and close it again. Takes about a
minute if you're moving with care.)

For my part, though, nothing in any of the Apple computers I've had has
needed any repairs at all (aside from the "T" and "Delete" keys on the
original Apple 2) over a period of more than 25 years.

I'd rather not worry over the core of my system -- have enough on my
plate with the hum in my old Fender Twin Reverb and getting off my ass
to change the pickups in an Epiphone SG I bought last year (got a couple
of the Duncan P-Rails but figuring out where to put the switches I need
so they're both functional and aesthetic has slowed me up considerably
-- or at least that's how I justify my delay. <g>).

-- Jon

--
"Coloured and animated, the concerts and spectacles are as many
invitations to discover the universes of musicians and artists
who tint with happiness our reality."

Laurence Payne[_2_]

June 18th 09, 01:47 PM

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:09:11 +0200, "Phil W" > wrote:

> But in the end, I think Apple is not any better than other
>companies. They just manage to have a better reputation. Which is IMHO
>rather based on what people want to believe, than on technical facts. If you
>don´t know, what I mean, go to a "Mac Expo" or so - you´ll feel like at a
>sect´s big meeting. Been there, done that...

Did you see the recent "Simpsons" episode where Lisa buys into the
whole Mac thing (and is sold into slavery to pay the bill!)?

It accurately expounded all the hype I have to overcome before even
beginning to evaluate a Mac product on technical merit.

Phil W

June 18th 09, 02:12 PM

Laurence Payne wrote:
> "Phil W" wrote:
>
>> But in the end, I think Apple is not any better than other
>> companies. They just manage to have a better reputation. Which is
>> IMHO rather based on what people want to believe, than on technical
>> facts. If you don´t know, what I mean, go to a "Mac Expo" or so -
>> you´ll feel like at a sect´s big meeting. Been there, done that...
>
> Did you see the recent "Simpsons" episode where Lisa buys into the
> whole Mac thing (and is sold into slavery to pay the bill!)?
>
> It accurately expounded all the hype I have to overcome before even
> beginning to evaluate a Mac product on technical merit.

Yeah, I´ve at least seen the part, where the go into that "mapple store" -
very close to my experiences at a "Mac Expo" in late 2007 here, actually the
Simpson´s episode was harmless compared to reality there. I´m not sure, if
the complete episode has been screened here in Germany yet.
I´m not saying, Apple products are technically bad, but as long as I can
have better and newer hardware for less money and don´t have to deal with
religiously blinded sectarian folks, they won´t make any money off me.
BTW: recently someone told me about his partner´s iphone and that it´s quite
impressive. What he disliked, was that it forces you to do everything with
Apple stuff. You can only put music on it through the iTunes software, have
to use the iTunes store etc. - this is pure monopolism! If Microsoft dared
to do something similar, the whole world who be crying out loud and pointing
their fingers at them. Apple, on the other hand, even gets applause for
their monopolistic behaviour.

I know, Windows is not the best OS in the world, but I also know, that Mac
OS isn´t either. ;-)

Mickey

June 18th 09, 02:25 PM

On 2009-06-18, Phil W > wrote:
> Laurence Payne wrote:
>> "Phil W" wrote:
>>
>>> But in the end, I think Apple is not any better than other
>>> companies. They just manage to have a better reputation. Which is
>>> IMHO rather based on what people want to believe, than on technical
>>> facts. If you don´t know, what I mean, go to a "Mac Expo" or so -
>>> you´ll feel like at a sect´s big meeting. Been there, done that...
>>
>> Did you see the recent "Simpsons" episode where Lisa buys into the
>> whole Mac thing (and is sold into slavery to pay the bill!)?
>>
>> It accurately expounded all the hype I have to overcome before even
>> beginning to evaluate a Mac product on technical merit.
>
> Yeah, I´ve at least seen the part, where the go into that "mapple store" -
> very close to my experiences at a "Mac Expo" in late 2007 here, actually the
> Simpson´s episode was harmless compared to reality there. I´m not sure, if
> the complete episode has been screened here in Germany yet.
> I´m not saying, Apple products are technically bad, but as long as I can
> have better and newer hardware for less money and don´t have to deal with
> religiously blinded sectarian folks, they won´t make any money off me.
> BTW: recently someone told me about his partner´s iphone and that it´s quite
> impressive. What he disliked, was that it forces you to do everything with
> Apple stuff. You can only put music on it through the iTunes software, have
> to use the iTunes store etc. - this is pure monopolism! If Microsoft dared
> to do something similar, the whole world who be crying out loud and pointing
> their fingers at them. Apple, on the other hand, even gets applause for
> their monopolistic behaviour.
>
> I know, Windows is not the best OS in the world, but I also know, that Mac
> OS isn´t either. ;-)

No OS which decides to use funky high-bit characters instead of a
simple apostrophe trips my trigger very much.

--
Mickey

Just because something is obviously happening doesn't mean something
obvious is happening. --Larry Wall

vdubreeze

June 18th 09, 02:39 PM

On Jun 18, 9:12*am, "Phil W" > wrote:
> What he disliked, was that it forces you to do everything with
> Apple stuff. You can only put music on it through the iTunes software, have
> to use the iTunes store etc. - this is pure monopolism! If Microsoft dared
> to do something similar, the whole world who be crying out loud and pointing
> their fingers at them. Apple, on the other hand, even gets applause for
> their monopolistic behaviour.

Well, this comes up on every forum from audio to gardening, and the
difference is that, of course, Microsoft is not in the hardware
business, just OS and software. Apple is, and is also in OS and
software. It's not monopolistic. If you want the package, you get
the package. You don't, you get something else. Funnily enough, the
world is full of people who hate Apple and obsess about how they can't
get an Apple product because then they'd have to use Apple software
(I'm not saying this is you, Phil). Like "I hate you, why don't you
love me?"

> I know, Windows is not the best OS in the world, but I also know, that Mac
> OS isn´t either. ;-)

Well, sure : ) But how come if I chose to be Mac based only because
I think it's the lesser of two evils, Apple-haters think I'm a
hypnotized drone? : ) Er, I'm not.

sslusser

June 18th 09, 04:03 PM

On Jun 16, 4:50*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "sslusser" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 16, 2:45 am, "Richard Crowley"
> > > wrote:
> >> Sean wrote:
> >>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
> >>>> And yet they still have only a tiny fractional market
> >>>> share. Apparently most consumers are immune from the
> >>>> propaganda and vote with their feet.
>
> >>> So far I've managed to resist the propaganda put out by
> >>> BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus. Who needs cool design,
> >>> comfort and performance? Those are for suckers.
>
> >> Exactly. If you are in the market to buy transportation,
> >> the BMWs, Mercedes, Lexus models are vast overkill.
> >> OTOH, if you are buying
> >> a "lifestyle experience" and an expression of your
> >> affluence, then go for the high-price spread. It doesn't
> >> get you there any faster (because of the speed limits,
> >> etc.) but you'll look a lot better. I couldn't think of
> >> a better analagy for buying a Mac computer.
>
> > So, *are saying that quality of material, aesthetics and
> > thoughtfulness of design are all meaningless?
>
> Of course he isn't saying that. He is saying that mid-priced products very
> often provide quite a bit of that, but if you pay much more, you don't get
> much more.

What he was saying is that those things don't matter. Re-read his
post. I'm just saying that if I am going to look at something day in
and day out I want a little more than just functionality.

hank alrich

June 18th 09, 05:35 PM

Sylvain Robitaille > wrote:

> Nil wrote (in what I believe was an otherwise well thought out post):
>
> > I don't think there are any audio apps available for Linux that have
> > the rich features that you find in the fanciest Windows and Mac
> > programs.
>
> Most of what you wrote I agree with, but on this point I have to ask: When
> did you last check? I've used Digital Performer. I've used ProtoolsHD.
> I use Ardour.
>
> I'm not claiming that Ardour could replace either of the above packages
> for everyone on every project, so please don't misunderstand me.
> However, for probably greater than 85% of people using DAW software,
> on probably greater than 85% of their projects, Ardour already has all
> the features they're likely to actually use, and then some, at a price
> that the commercial packages simply can't compete with.

In theory yes (and I am all for open source DAW availability), but in
practice one must bee saavy enough to deal with some "gotchas" that seem
to show up while getting the Linux DAW's running. Several highly capable
friends of mine have taken that shot and then returned to their Mac or
Windows DAW of previous choice.

It comes down to what one wants to do with one's time. If one has work
to do it may or may not make sense to spend time working out kinks in an
install.

Someday this will be irrelevant. A Linux DAW install will be as simple
as a Logic or DP install, and I look forward to that, if I live long
enough. <g>

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

Steve King

June 18th 09, 05:41 PM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
| Phil W > wrote:
| >
| >IF I´d decide to spend so much money on hardware, I´d want current
| >technology and not something that was up-to-date maybe 1,5 years ago.
| >But that´s just my humble opinion.
|
| Nahh, I'd rather have something that has been shaken down carefully and
| found to be very reliable, with as many bugs as possible worked out of it.
| I suggest staying very far away from the state of the art because it is
too
| easy to get hurt.
|
| But then, I don't have any computer in the control room here, just an
Ampex.
| It hasn't crashed yet.
| --scott
|
| --
| "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I had an Ampex that crashed. Two interns let it slip and it bounced down
two flights of stairs including a 90 degree turn. I had to replace one tube
that broke and realign it before I could use it.

Steve King

Laurence Payne[_2_]

June 18th 09, 06:31 PM

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:03:18 -0700 (PDT), sslusser
> wrote:

>What he was saying is that those things don't matter. Re-read his
>post. I'm just saying that if I am going to look at something day in
>and day out I want a little more than just functionality.

On tech gear doesn't functionality equal style?

hank alrich

June 18th 09, 07:06 PM

Steve King > wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
> | Phil W > wrote:
> | >
> | >IF I´d decide to spend so much money on hardware, I´d want current
> | >technology and not something that was up-to-date maybe 1,5 years ago.
> | >But that´s just my humble opinion.
> |
> | Nahh, I'd rather have something that has been shaken down carefully and
> | found to be very reliable, with as many bugs as possible worked out of it.
> | I suggest staying very far away from the state of the art because it is
> too
> | easy to get hurt.
> |
> | But then, I don't have any computer in the control room here, just an
> Ampex.
> | It hasn't crashed yet.
> | --scott
> |
> | --
> | "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
> I had an Ampex that crashed. Two interns let it slip and it bounced down
> two flights of stairs including a 90 degree turn. I had to replace one tube
> that broke and realign it before I could use it.
>
> Steve King

Yeah, well if it had been a computer you could have just thrown it out
and gotten another one and saved yourself all that trouble!

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

hank alrich

June 18th 09, 07:06 PM

Laurence Payne > wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:03:18 -0700 (PDT), sslusser
> > wrote:
>
> >What he was saying is that those things don't matter. Re-read his
> >post. I'm just saying that if I am going to look at something day in
> >and day out I want a little more than just functionality.
>
> On tech gear doesn't functionality equal style?

Sure, and then some folks prefer the style of a particular OS because
for them it appears more functional.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

Laurence Payne[_2_]

June 18th 09, 07:42 PM

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:06:22 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>> On tech gear doesn't functionality equal style?
>
>Sure, and then some folks prefer the style of a particular OS because
>for them it appears more functional.

Apart from a few "now, where HAVE they hidden that?" moments I'm
seeing little difference in functionality between Windows and Mac
these days, once I'm in an application. And that's all that really
matters, surely?

Scott Dorsey

June 18th 09, 08:10 PM

Laurence Payne > wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:06:22 -0700, (hank alrich)
>wrote:
>
>>> On tech gear doesn't functionality equal style?
>>
>>Sure, and then some folks prefer the style of a particular OS because
>>for them it appears more functional.
>
>Apart from a few "now, where HAVE they hidden that?" moments I'm
>seeing little difference in functionality between Windows and Mac
>these days, once I'm in an application. And that's all that really
>matters, surely?

It's weird, and I never thought I'd say this, but the Mac has a lot of
added functionality in my opinion because it has such a powerful command
line interface. Weird, isn't it? I'd have never guessed it a decade ago.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[email protected]

June 18th 09, 08:20 PM

On 2009-06-18 (hankalrich) said:
>> | >IF I´d decide to spend so much money on hardware, I´d want
>>current | >technology and not something that was up-to-date maybe
>>1,5 years ago. | >But that´s just my humble opinion.
<snip>

>> | But then, I don't have any computer in the control room here,
>>just an Ampex.
>> | It hasn't crashed yet.
>> I had an Ampex that crashed. Two interns let it slip and it
>>bounced down two flights of stairs including a 90 degree turn. I
>>had to replace one tube that broke and realign it before I could
>use it. >
>Yeah, well if it had been a computer you could have just thrown it
>out and gotten another one and saved yourself all that trouble!
Until you got it home and found out that the hardware you
used, just purchased a year ago, is no longer supported by
the new os that's on the computer you picked up at the shop,
and after reinstalling an os it will work with no you've
broken its internet or other net connections, and the video
doesn't play right with everybody else and ...

Three days later you're passing your first audio signal
through the new system and hoping it doesn't crash because
this one's for the money and the client's in the control
room <g>.

Have fun.

Regards,

Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

Disk Failure: (C)old boot; (W)arm boot; (S)teel-toed boot.

Phil W

June 18th 09, 09:10 PM

vdubreeze wrote:
> "Phil W" wrote:

> Well, this comes up on every forum from audio to gardening, and the
> difference is that, of course, Microsoft is not in the hardware
> business, just OS and software.

MS does sell hardware, but not computers. MS has hardware like the "Zune" or
the Xbox gaming consoles, besides stuff like keyboards, mice etc.

> Apple is, and is also in OS and
> software. It's not monopolistic.

Well, I won´t be splitting hairs about this, but what Apple does, is at
least very close to monopolism.

> If you want the package, you get
> the package. You don't, you get something else. Funnily enough, the
> world is full of people who hate Apple and obsess about how they can't
> get an Apple product because then they'd have to use Apple software
> (I'm not saying this is you, Phil). Like "I hate you, why don't you
> love me?"

Yeah, I understand. I just think, they´re not judged the same way as other
companies in the same market: when MS buys smaller companies, they´re bad.
When Apple buys a company like Emagic, it´s a "great move". From an
economical point of view, they´re both not better than the other one.
For example: the EU forces MS to ship Windows without the Internet Explorer
(and without the Media Player) because they want to give equal chances to
concurring browsers. On the other hand, nobody forces Apple to ship their OS
without Safari. To me, that doesn´t sound like equal rights and duties for
everyone... Of course, Windows/IE has a much bigger market than
MacOS/Safari, but the thought behind it is, that users should be made aware,
they can also use other browsers than the IE. Now, what about Camino and
Opera for MacOS? The average Mac user won´t even consider, there might be
some browser software other than Apple´s Safari - just like the average
Windows fool will probably stick with a pre-installed IE.

>> I know, Windows is not the best OS in the world, but I also know,
>> that Mac OS isn´t either. ;-)
>
> Well, sure : ) But how come if I chose to be Mac based only because
> I think it's the lesser of two evils, Apple-haters think I'm a
> hypnotized drone? : ) Er, I'm not.

Well, I do know, not all Apple users are "hypnotized drones". ;-) But what
I´ve seen at this "mac expo" was far beyond what I could have imagined in my
worst thoughts. It seemed, there were mainly "hypnotized drones" wandering
around like "hey, where can I spend my money, please?!" - unbelievable.
Apple just seems to attract that kind of costumers more than other
manufacturers.
BTW: I also use a friend´s Mac (ibook G4) often for recording and used a
really old Mac almost 10 years ago at my University student job. Anyway,
this old machine ran OS 8.6 and was actually even too old for that - 10
minutes for boot-up wasn´t really comfortable. ;-) So, I do know Mac OS at
least enough to say something experience-based about it...

Laurence Payne[_2_]

June 18th 09, 10:17 PM

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:10:23 +0200, "Phil W" > wrote:

>For example: the EU forces MS to ship Windows without the Internet Explorer
>(and without the Media Player) because they want to give equal chances to
>concurring browsers.

Where did you get that from? In this EU country, at any rate, Windows
ships with IE and Media player just as it always did. All that's
changed recently is a (largely ignored) Default Programs item in
Control Panel.

What's a "concurring browser"? Obviously a misprint, but what for?

Ken[_8_]

June 18th 09, 10:29 PM

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:17:19 +0100, Laurence Payne
> wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:10:23 +0200, "Phil W" > wrote:
>> For example: the EU forces MS to ship Windows without the Internet Explorer
>> (and without the Media Player) because they want to give equal chances to
>> concurring browsers.
>
> Where did you get that from? In this EU country, at any rate, Windows
> ships with IE and Media player just as it always did. All that's
> changed recently is a (largely ignored) Default Programs item in
> Control Panel.
>
> What's a "concurring browser"? Obviously a misprint, but what for?

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Microsoft-Internet-Explorer-EU-antitrust,8062.html

Sylvain Robitaille

June 18th 09, 10:38 PM

hank alrich wrote:

>> ... Ardour already has all the features they're likely to actually
>> use, and then some, at a price that the commercial packages simply
>> can't compete with.
>
> In theory yes (and I am all for open source DAW availability), but in
> practice one must bee saavy enough to deal with some "gotchas" that
> seem to show up while getting the Linux DAW's running.

In the sense that you probably need to install additional software
components in order to even be able to get the DAW installed and
running, yes. If you're able (and are inclined) to spend the time to
do it, the only other gotcha I've run into is getting things installed
in the correct order (some things depend on other things, and that isn't
necessarily made clear in documentation).

> Several highly capable friends of mine have taken that shot and then
> returned to their Mac or Windows DAW of previous choice.

Perhaps they were working with a system that is more difficult to work
with than it needs to be (I don't want to mention names, but some of the
Linux distributions put so much effort into trying to protect the user
from himself, that things that should be easy to do end up being
convoluted), or maybe when the task grew beyond installing more than a
few software packages, they decided that was enough of that, their
interests were more inclined with getting down to the business of
recording, etc, etc.

> It comes down to what one wants to do with one's time. ...

Agreed.

> If one has work to do it may or may not make sense to spend time
> working out kinks in an install.

True. In a "time is money" scenario, though, one might want to consider
an investment in time as a means towards saving money later.

> Someday this will be irrelevant. A Linux DAW install will be as simple
> as a Logic or DP install, ...

I hope you're right.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille

Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------

vdubreeze

June 18th 09, 10:41 PM

On Jun 18, 4:10*pm, "Phil W" > wrote:

> Well, I do know, not all Apple users are "hypnotized drones". ;-) But what
> I´ve seen at this "mac expo" was far beyond what I could have imagined in my
> worst thoughts. It seemed, there were mainly "hypnotized drones" wandering
> around like "hey, where can I spend my money, please?!" - unbelievable.

Hey, trade shows don't count! At NAMM I'm soitenly a hypnotized
drone! : )

> Apple just seems to attract that kind of costumers more than other
> manufacturers.

There's a Trekkie Convention joke there. : )

V

Laurence Payne[_2_]

June 18th 09, 10:46 PM

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:29:44 +0200, Ken > wrote:

>http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Microsoft-Internet-Explorer-EU-antitrust,8062.html

You said:
For example: the EU forces MS to ship Windows without the Internet
Explorer (and without the Media Player) because they want to give
equal chances to concurring browsers.

That link predicts how Windows 7 will be distributed. Rather a
different thing.

I vaguely recollect hearing that Microsoft offers current versions to
manufacturers without IE etc. but of course no-one wanted it :-)

For what it's worth, the evaluation copy of Windows 7 installed on one
of my computers installed complete with all the usual utilities.

Scott Dorsey

June 19th 09, 01:27 AM

vdubreeze > wrote:
>
>Hey, trade shows don't count! At NAMM I'm soitenly a hypnotized
>drone! : )

STOP. TAKE A DEEP BREATH. DO NOT PURCHASE A PINK CHINESE-MADE PIANO.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Geoff

June 19th 09, 01:30 AM

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> vdubreeze > wrote:
>>
>> Hey, trade shows don't count! At NAMM I'm soitenly a hypnotized
>> drone! : )
>
> STOP. TAKE A DEEP BREATH. DO NOT PURCHASE A PINK CHINESE-MADE PIANO.
> --scott

Apple make pianos ?

geoff

Scott Dorsey

June 19th 09, 01:43 AM

geoff > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> vdubreeze > wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey, trade shows don't count! At NAMM I'm soitenly a hypnotized
>>> drone! : )
>>
>> STOP. TAKE A DEEP BREATH. DO NOT PURCHASE A PINK CHINESE-MADE PIANO.
>
>Apple make pianos ?

No, if Apple made pianos, they would be white and have only one key on
them.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

smallbutfine

June 19th 09, 01:50 AM

Scott Dorsey schrieb:
> Laurence Payne > wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:06:22 -0700, (hank alrich)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On tech gear doesn't functionality equal style?
>>> Sure, and then some folks prefer the style of a particular OS because
>>> for them it appears more functional.
>> Apart from a few "now, where HAVE they hidden that?" moments I'm
>> seeing little difference in functionality between Windows and Mac
>> these days, once I'm in an application. And that's all that really
>> matters, surely?
>
> It's weird, and I never thought I'd say this, but the Mac has a lot of
> added functionality in my opinion because it has such a powerful command
> line interface. Weird, isn't it? I'd have never guessed it a decade ago.
> --scott
Sure it has, the underlying system is unix, eh... Linux stuff....hmmm
I remember the joke we had when the main OS architecture streams evolved..,
It was about the number of mouse buttons and the relationship to
sophistication and style of the users (you remember? Unix - 3, MS - 2,
Apple - 1(ready to be used by E.T.)
Nowadays I have two antique Apples, and 3-4 more and less modern Intel
PCs running xp and Mandriva Linux.
I would switch totally to Linux as soon as my DAW soft (Sonar) would run
fine in Wine. (near future I guess)
Actually I already design VSTs completely with windows soft in wine.
I would not be surprised if most win software runs faster on a bleeding
edge Linux, some actually does already as of today.

Mac users always thought in a kind of religous way about their
choice...actually kept away from the underlying principles, which is not
a good thing in times of global data interchange and storage....
I always wanted to know 'how things work' therefore I use open source
whereever possible, open office, firefox, thunderbird under both systems
and build my PC's by myself with money beeing the only compromise. The
day this compromise is not necessary I would probably get a Mac with
protools hd5....but my PCs are just as reliable as the Apples are - at a
fraction of cost.
Maybe if I win the lottery I will quit building and buy an apple
(driving all OS's?)...and drive a lamborghini in city traffic... ;-)

Kind regards
Martin

Chris Hornbeck

June 19th 09, 02:13 AM

On 18 Jun 2009 20:43:30 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>geoff > wrote:
>>Apple make pianos ?
>
>No, if Apple made pianos, they would be white and have only one key on
>them.

What a great idea! i-Piano; you don't even need to learn to
play, it's so intuitive.

The downside is that you'll have to defend your piano choice
every three months on r.a.p - but hey, that's life.

Much thanks, as always,
Chris hornbeck

smallbutfine

June 19th 09, 02:25 AM

Sylvain Robitaille schrieb:
> hank alrich wrote:
>
>>> ... Ardour already has all the features they're likely to actually
>>> use, and then some, at a price that the commercial packages simply
>>> can't compete with.
>> In theory yes (and I am all for open source DAW availability), but in
>> practice one must bee saavy enough to deal with some "gotchas" that
>> seem to show up while getting the Linux DAW's running.
>
> In the sense that you probably need to install additional software
> components in order to even be able to get the DAW installed and
> running, yes. If you're able (and are inclined) to spend the time to
> do it, the only other gotcha I've run into is getting things installed
> in the correct order (some things depend on other things, and that isn't
> necessarily made clear in documentation).
>
>> Several highly capable friends of mine have taken that shot and then
>> returned to their Mac or Windows DAW of previous choice.
>
> Perhaps they were working with a system that is more difficult to work
> with than it needs to be (I don't want to mention names, but some of the
> Linux distributions put so much effort into trying to protect the user
> from himself, that things that should be easy to do end up being
> convoluted), or maybe when the task grew beyond installing more than a
> few software packages, they decided that was enough of that, their
> interests were more inclined with getting down to the business of
> recording, etc, etc.
>
>> It comes down to what one wants to do with one's time. ...
>
> Agreed.
>
>> If one has work to do it may or may not make sense to spend time
>> working out kinks in an install.
>
> True. In a "time is money" scenario, though, one might want to consider
> an investment in time as a means towards saving money later.
>
>> Someday this will be irrelevant. A Linux DAW install will be as simple
>> as a Logic or DP install, ...
>
> I hope you're right.
>

Hmm
following the installation instructions I installed ardour without any
problems though...took around half an hour - for the VST capable
version! (Please note: due to Steinbergs license, this is the main
showstopper - the software actually has to be build/compiled on the
machine for installation! - installing ardour without vst support is
easier than installing anything on a windows machine...)
Well I used Mandriva 2009.0. I was pretty amazed how well and
comfortable it works...I was completly on XP for some years...

BTW, the SAE story was not very funny IMHO (they quit paying the Ardour
programmer...after the SAE version has already been spreaded). NOT nice
behaviour...(read the full story in ardours website...)

Kind regards,
Martin Haverland

smallbutfine

June 19th 09, 02:37 AM

smallbutfine schrieb:
> Sylvain Robitaille schrieb:
>> hank alrich wrote:
>>
>>>> ... Ardour already has all the features they're likely to actually
>>>> use, and then some, at a price that the commercial packages simply
>>>> can't compete with.
>>> In theory yes (and I am all for open source DAW availability), but in
>>> practice one must bee saavy enough to deal with some "gotchas" that
>>> seem to show up while getting the Linux DAW's running.
>>
>> In the sense that you probably need to install additional software
>> components in order to even be able to get the DAW installed and
>> running, yes. If you're able (and are inclined) to spend the time to
>> do it, the only other gotcha I've run into is getting things installed
>> in the correct order (some things depend on other things, and that isn't
>> necessarily made clear in documentation).
>>
>>> Several highly capable friends of mine have taken that shot and then
>>> returned to their Mac or Windows DAW of previous choice.
>>
>> Perhaps they were working with a system that is more difficult to work
>> with than it needs to be (I don't want to mention names, but some of the
>> Linux distributions put so much effort into trying to protect the user
>> from himself, that things that should be easy to do end up being
>> convoluted), or maybe when the task grew beyond installing more than a
>> few software packages, they decided that was enough of that, their
>> interests were more inclined with getting down to the business of
>> recording, etc, etc.
>>
>>> It comes down to what one wants to do with one's time. ...
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> If one has work to do it may or may not make sense to spend time
>>> working out kinks in an install.
>>
>> True. In a "time is money" scenario, though, one might want to consider
>> an investment in time as a means towards saving money later.
>>
>>> Someday this will be irrelevant. A Linux DAW install will be as simple
>>> as a Logic or DP install, ...
>>
>> I hope you're right.
>>
>
> Hmm
> following the installation instructions I installed ardour without any
> problems though...took around half an hour - for the VST capable
> version! (Please note: due to Steinbergs license, this is the main
> showstopper - the software actually has to be build/compiled on the
> machine for installation! - installing ardour without vst support is
> easier than installing anything on a windows machine...)
> Well I used Mandriva 2009.0. I was pretty amazed how well and
> comfortable it works...I was completly on XP for some years...
>
> BTW, the SAE story was not very funny IMHO (they quit paying the Ardour
> programmer...after the SAE version has already been spreaded). NOT nice
> behaviour...(read the full story in ardours website...)
>
> Kind regards,
> Martin Haverland

OOPs...
what is going on? on the german SAE page they announced sponoring of
ardour *yesterday*???
Maybe the story made too much bad publicity and they made a (good)
decision....

dwgriffi

June 19th 09, 05:22 AM

On Jun 18, 2:42*pm, Laurence Payne > wrote:

>
> >Sure, and then some folks prefer the style of a particular OS because
> >for them it appears more functional.
>
> Apart from a few "now, where HAVE they hidden that?" moments I'm
> seeing little difference in functionality between Windows and Mac
> these days, once I'm in an application. *And that's all that really
> matters, surely?

I think so as well. But as long as there's other menus and panels you
need to visit periodically, the differences still rear their heads. I
can go between Photoshop on OSX and Windows and have no quarrels at
all. But I still get annoyed when I have to do some Windows thing,
whether it's just opening and closing stuff or moving things to other
places.

I always figured I'd get used to it, but I never have. I still enjoy
doing it in OSX and dislike doing it in Windows. Eh : )

Denny Strauser[_2_]

June 19th 09, 05:33 AM

Soundhaspriority wrote:
<snipped>
I'd choose Mac if I had the money to spend. But in the past, many
consoles were only Windows capable. That has changed. Not only that, but
Macs are now Windows capable. But, the cost is still a factor to
consider. I bought a PC laptop this year only because it cost half what
a Mac costs. AND with a Mac, I'd have to buy Windows software. If you
can afford a Mac, buy one. But, if you're on a limited budget, a PC will
do the job just as well.

My home computer is a Mac, but my laptop is Windows. I have no
complaints about either.

-Denny

Geoff

June 19th 09, 06:07 AM

dwgriffi wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2:42 pm, Laurence Payne > wrote:
>
>>
>>> Sure, and then some folks prefer the style of a particular OS
>>> because for them it appears more functional.
>>
>> Apart from a few "now, where HAVE they hidden that?" moments I'm
>> seeing little difference in functionality between Windows and Mac
>> these days, once I'm in an application. And that's all that really
>> matters, surely?
>
>
> I think so as well. But as long as there's other menus and panels you
> need to visit periodically, the differences still rear their heads. I
> can go between Photoshop on OSX and Windows and have no quarrels at
> all. But I still get annoyed when I have to do some Windows thing,
> whether it's just opening and closing stuff or moving things to other
> places.
>
> I always figured I'd get used to it, but I never have. I still enjoy
> doing it in OSX and dislike doing it in Windows. Eh : )

Once upon a time when somebody gave me a Mac, I took ages to figure out why
the menu would disappear when I let goof the button. But this was back in
the days when the Mac needed to access a floppy disk practically whenever
you wanted do do anything more complicated than simply moving the mouse.

I went back to my QL in frustration.

geoff

hank alrich

June 19th 09, 07:53 AM

Phil W > wrote:

> The average Mac user won´t even consider, there might be
> some browser software other than Apple´s Safari - just like the average
> Windows fool will probably stick with a pre-installed IE.

Almost of of the Macsters I know are running Firefox. I don't know a
single one who relies on Safari.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

hank alrich

June 19th 09, 07:53 AM

smallbutfine > wrote:

> but my PCs are just as reliable as the Apples are - at a
> fraction of cost.

Are you accounting for the value of your time?

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

Laurence Payne[_2_]

June 19th 09, 08:14 AM

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:33:24 -0400, Denny Strauser
> wrote:

> If you
>can afford a Mac, buy one. But, if you're on a limited budget, a PC will
>do the job just as well.

So what on EARTH is your point?

Denny Strauser[_2_]

June 19th 09, 10:12 AM

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:33:24 -0400, Denny Strauser
> > wrote:
>
>> If you
>> can afford a Mac, buy one. But, if you're on a limited budget, a PC will
>> do the job just as well.
>
> So what on EARTH is your point?

Well, first of all, until replying to this specific post, I thought I
was responding only to AAPLS - Live Audio. Second of all, a Windows
laptop costs half as much as a Mac. Third of all, considering the
preceding assumptions, the rest (of my original post) is self
explanatory....?

-Denny

Martin Harrington

June 19th 09, 11:28 AM

On 19/06/09 7:12 PM, in article ,
"Denny Strauser" > wrote:

> Laurence Payne wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:33:24 -0400, Denny Strauser
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> If you
>>> can afford a Mac, buy one. But, if you're on a limited budget, a PC will
>>> do the job just as well.
>>
>> So what on EARTH is your point?
>
>
> Well, first of all, until replying to this specific post, I thought I
> was responding only to AAPLS - Live Audio. Second of all, a Windows
> laptop costs half as much as a Mac. Third of all, considering the
> preceding assumptions, the rest (of my original post) is self
> explanatory....?
>
> -Denny

So...why did you cross post.

Martin H

Rado Stefano

June 19th 09, 12:03 PM

Mac laptops are very expansive for what you get.
I have a little computer company on the side and repair a lot of
laptops.
The mobo of the mac is as big as a cellphone. Everything inside is
cheaply made.
If you want get an ASUS laptop and install OSX and windows dual boot.
This way you can use all the programs that you need.
If you have an IPHONE, get a PC.
There is a program for PC only which you can use to file transfer.

About the hardware upgrades...
You can use a lot of non apple hardware on apple.
Just go to http://www.osx86project.org/ and research which hardware
works out of the box.
Also a lot of hardware works with simple kext upgrades and a few
commands in terminal that you can copy and paste.

I personally use VISTA since apple are very slow in upgrading their OS
for new software.
For example: pro tools users had to wait 10 months to use the latest
version of PT.
Adobe software does not work in 64bit on an Apple.
A lot of graphic people that I know are switching to PC because of it.
AUDIO DRIVERS ARE NEVER AVAILABLE OR WORKING AFTER AN OSX UPGRADE.

RME-AUDIO always have drivers ready and working even before the OSX
upgrade is out.

Got to go now

smallbutfine

June 19th 09, 12:11 PM

hank alrich schrieb:
> smallbutfine > wrote:
>
>> but my PCs are just as reliable as the Apples are - at a
>> fraction of cost.
>
> Are you accounting for the value of your time?
>
I am not accounting for the knowledge and education, but if I take a
commercial fee per hour, yes, I am still at a fraction of cost.

Say, 2h for selecting parts max, 1 hour for assembly, which is reality
values, still much cheaper than a mac.

Jon

June 19th 09, 04:07 PM

smallbutfine wrote:

> but my PCs are just as reliable as the Apples are - at a
> fraction of cost.

Check the table, though, at

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=1

and the article at

http://machinist.salon.com/feature/2007/11/07/mac_price/

-- Jon

--
"Coloured and animated, the concerts and spectacles are as many
invitations to discover the universes of musicians and artists
who tint with happiness our reality."

hank alrich

June 19th 09, 04:55 PM

Rado Stefano > wrote:

> Mac laptops are very expansive for what you get.
> I have a little computer company on the side and repair a lot of
> laptops.
> The mobo of the mac is as big as a cellphone. Everything inside is
> cheaply made.

Probably why this TiBook has run flawlessly for over 6.5 years, while
getting hauled around for location work.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

Sylvain Robitaille

June 19th 09, 06:35 PM

smallbutfine wrote:

> following the installation instructions I installed ardour without any
> problems though...took around half an hour - for the VST capable
> version! (Please note: due to Steinbergs license, this is the main
> showstopper - the software actually has to be build/compiled on the
> machine for installation! - installing ardour without vst support is
> easier than installing anything on a windows machine...)

See Ardour-2.8. My understanding is that binary distribution of
VST-enabled Ardour is now possible, due to the use of an open-source
VST-compatible implementation rather than Steinberg's proprietary library.

My experience installing Ardour on Slamd64 is similar to what you
describe on Mandriva, at least for the last three versions (up to 2.7.1;
I haven't yet upgraded to 2.8), after I had an initial version working.
Getting it done the first time took more effort, but that's because
Slamd64 isn't descendant of a Linux distribution that specializes in
multimedia, so there were more than a few packages (mostly libraries)
required by Ardour to track down and install first.

I know that Mandriva, and Mandrake before it, does have a relatively
large following for audio use.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille

Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Crowley

June 19th 09, 09:31 PM

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
> (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> geoff wrote:
>>> Apple make pianos ?
>>
>> No, if Apple made pianos, they would be white and have only one key
>> on them.
>
> What a great idea! i-Piano; you don't even need to learn to
> play, it's so intuitive.
>
> The downside is that you'll have to defend your piano choice
> every three months on r.a.p - but hey, that's life.

And you could only play music published by Apple.

Richard Crowley

June 19th 09, 09:39 PM

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:10:23 +0200, "Phil W" > wrote:
>
>> For example: the EU forces MS to ship Windows without the Internet
>> Explorer (and without the Media Player) because they want to give
>> equal chances to concurring browsers.
>
> Where did you get that from?

There is more news about the world of computing than you will read
here in r.a.p. Here are just the first four hits from Google...

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/06/13/Europe-to-get-Windows-7-without-browser/UPI-80131244896289/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10262630-56.html
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/06/windows-7-to-be-shipped-in-europe-sans-internet-explorer.ars
http://hothardware.com/News/Europe-to-Receive-Browserless-Windows-7/

But eliinating IE from Win7 isn't enough for the EU. They want MS to
distribute a 3rd party (unspecified) "competing" browser with Windows 7.
Rather like forcing BMW to sell cars with a Mercedes transmission, etc.

smallbutfine

June 20th 09, 01:50 AM

Jon schrieb:
> smallbutfine wrote:
>
>> but my PCs are just as reliable as the Apples are - at a
>> fraction of cost.
>
> Check the table, though, at
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=1
>
> and the article at
>
> http://machinist.salon.com/feature/2007/11/07/mac_price/
>
> -- Jon
>
Yes, Jon, I understand what you want to point out here.

The article with the home-built PC vs. Apple is just not hitting the
point for me.
I would never choose the components that Apple does nor would I buy HP
(or dell etc). Noone can reach their quantity prices in home-built pc's,
no matter how much research on the internet is done...
This is part of my concept of building PC's - there are components that
have a very good price-performance ratio. For me, the Xeons do not fit
my concept anytime.

Sure, there are not many gems in the processor market, but there are.
In my main workstation it is a Q6600 G0 revision (95W), that works
absolutely flawlessly and cool at 4x 3.4GHz (silently after-market
air-cooled at 50 deg celsius in summer), with abolutely NONE of the
often described 'compatibility issues due to overclocking' with hard or
soft components. And I am sure that all Q6600 95w reach at least 3 GHz
aircooled without any problems.

Same for mainboards. As of today you can have a very reliable solid
capacitor P43/P45 mainboard ICH10R chipset with firewire that works
perfect with, say a lightbridge or RME cards (mine works even with the
old sonorus cards, VSL2020,... whatever you throw at it!) for below 100
Euro (in US: $100), there are several from different brands.
Radeon 4670 (low power, high value, passive), 1,5TB HDD, 4Gigs of
reliable DDR2 - great, silent and cheap combination, perfect for audio.
(And many other serious tasks)

And there we are: For running an audio-workstation you would have a
perfect value for the bucks, I did not find a task until today where I
missed any power.
Try find a Mac far below 1000 bucks with similar practical value: I must
confess I did not even try to take a look in Apples portfolio.

I do not want anyone else to choose components that are just on the
shelf of a big company - this is exactly why I would not buy a mac (or
HP). I want to have the choice to get an extremely good price break for
my tasks.
I do not even think about what happens in 4 years or later, because ALL
computers of today will be pretty much antique then...no matter what you
paid for it. This is the only thing that never changed since the eighties.

BTW; with this system I did not have a single crash in over a year that
forced a reboot under XP SP3, but yes, the system is slightly customized
and stripped for some security stuff, MS proprietary and paranoid
'features' etc.

I hope I made my point more clear now....

Kind regards,
Martin

smallbutfine

June 20th 09, 01:58 AM

Richard Crowley schrieb:
> Laurence Payne wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:10:23 +0200, "Phil W" > wrote:
>>
>>> For example: the EU forces MS to ship Windows without the Internet
>>> Explorer (and without the Media Player) because they want to give
>>> equal chances to concurring browsers.
>> Where did you get that from?
>
> There is more news about the world of computing than you will read
> here in r.a.p. Here are just the first four hits from Google...
>
> http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/06/13/Europe-to-get-Windows-7-without-browser/UPI-80131244896289/
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10262630-56.html
> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/06/windows-7-to-be-shipped-in-europe-sans-internet-explorer.ars
> http://hothardware.com/News/Europe-to-Receive-Browserless-Windows-7/
>
> But eliinating IE from Win7 isn't enough for the EU. They want MS to
> distribute a 3rd party (unspecified) "competing" browser with Windows 7.
> Rather like forcing BMW to sell cars with a Mercedes transmission, etc.
>
>
Well, at least *something* I like EU politics for....their attitude
against MS is funny after all those countless lawsuits that MS lost.

Martin Haverland

Richard Crowley

June 20th 09, 02:50 AM

smallbutfine wrote:
> Richard Crowley schrieb:
>> But eliinating IE from Win7 isn't enough for the EU. They want MS to
>> distribute a 3rd party (unspecified) "competing" browser with
>> Windows 7. Rather like forcing BMW to sell cars with a Mercedes
>> transmission, etc.
> Well, at least *something* I like EU politics for....their attitude
> against MS is funny after all those countless lawsuits that MS lost.

The EU commission's notion of "competition:" is to legally tie up
any non European competitors so that European companies (if
any) can "compete" against hobbled competitors. It is exactly the
kind of pathetic protectionionsm they condemn in others. Sorry,
no admiration of EU politics here.

cjt

June 20th 09, 03:07 AM

Richard Crowley wrote:
> smallbutfine wrote:
>
>>Richard Crowley schrieb:
>>
>>>But eliinating IE from Win7 isn't enough for the EU. They want MS to
>>>distribute a 3rd party (unspecified) "competing" browser with
>>>Windows 7. Rather like forcing BMW to sell cars with a Mercedes
>>>transmission, etc.
>>
>>Well, at least *something* I like EU politics for....their attitude
>>against MS is funny after all those countless lawsuits that MS lost.
>
>
> The EU commission's notion of "competition:" is to legally tie up
> any non European competitors so that European companies (if
> any) can "compete" against hobbled competitors. It is exactly the
> kind of pathetic protectionionsm they condemn in others. Sorry,
> no admiration of EU politics here.
>
>
It's good to see Microsoft on the receiving end; more commonly they're
doing their best to hobble others.

Peter Larsen[_3_]

June 20th 09, 03:50 AM

Richard Crowley wrote:

| smallbutfine wrote:

|| Richard Crowley schrieb:

||| But eliinating IE from Win7 isn't enough for the EU. They want MS
||| to distribute a 3rd party (unspecified) "competing" browser with
||| Windows 7. Rather like forcing BMW to sell cars with a Mercedes
||| transmission, etc.

No, like forcing them to sell a three wheeled car because that is how the
Reliant was. And it wasn't, reliant that is.

|| Well, at least *something* I like EU politics for....their attitude
|| against MS is funny after all those countless lawsuits that MS lost.

| The EU commission's notion of "competition:" is to legally tie up
| any non European competitors so that European companies (if
| any) can "compete" against hobbled competitors. It is exactly the
| kind of pathetic protectionionsm they condemn in others. Sorry,
| no admiration of EU politics here.

It is a case of political correctness with an unfortunate lack of technical
merit made by politicians who will gladly pay the extra cost of implementing
linux because they overestimate the cost of licenses and underestimate the
cost of supporting marginally documented products.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

smallbutfine

June 20th 09, 04:43 AM

Richard Crowley schrieb:
> smallbutfine wrote:
>> Richard Crowley schrieb:
>>> But eliinating IE from Win7 isn't enough for the EU. They want MS to
>>> distribute a 3rd party (unspecified) "competing" browser with
>>> Windows 7. Rather like forcing BMW to sell cars with a Mercedes
>>> transmission, etc.
>> Well, at least *something* I like EU politics for....their attitude
>> against MS is funny after all those countless lawsuits that MS lost.
>
> The EU commission's notion of "competition:" is to legally tie up
> any non European competitors so that European companies (if
> any) can "compete" against hobbled competitors. It is exactly the
> kind of pathetic protectionionsm they condemn in others. Sorry,
> no admiration of EU politics here.
>
>
Hm, ok, I cannot see any european competitor here...
well and for sure I will not take part in any kind of US vs EU politics
discussion. Mac against Win is hard enough....

Phil W

June 20th 09, 05:53 AM

smallbutfine wrote:
> Richard Crowley schrieb:
>> smallbutfine wrote:
>>> Richard Crowley schrieb:
>>>> But eliinating IE from Win7 isn't enough for the EU. They want MS
>>>> to distribute a 3rd party (unspecified) "competing" browser with
>>>> Windows 7. Rather like forcing BMW to sell cars with a Mercedes
>>>> transmission, etc.
>>> Well, at least *something* I like EU politics for....their attitude
>>> against MS is funny after all those countless lawsuits that MS lost.
>>
>> The EU commission's notion of "competition:" is to legally tie up
>> any non European competitors so that European companies (if
>> any) can "compete" against hobbled competitors. It is exactly the
>> kind of pathetic protectionionsm they condemn in others. Sorry,
>> no admiration of EU politics here.
>>
> Hm, ok, I cannot see any european competitor here...
> well and for sure I will not take part in any kind of US vs EU
> politics discussion. Mac against Win is hard enough....

Opera Software is from Norway, but Norway is not an EU member. They were the
ones, who put the EU commission?s attention to the case.
While I generally like the idea of having alternatives in software for the
same application, in my personal experience with Opera?s browser has been,
that it?s fast, but in the end has about as many HTML interpretation
problems as the IE. Opera just has other problems with showing websites
correctly. At least, Opera is "safer" than the IE, but what is a safe
browser worth, if it doesn?t show many websites correctly? :-\
Before anyone tries to punch me for not having real world experience: I have
several browsers installed side by side and also use them - IE8, Firefox3,
Opera9, Safari4 and since recently even Amaya.

Phil

Phil W

June 20th 09, 05:59 AM

hank alrich wrote:
> Phil W wrote:
>
>> The average Mac user won´t even consider, there might be
>> some browser software other than Apple´s Safari - just like the
>> average Windows fool will probably stick with a pre-installed IE.
>
> Almost of of the Macsters I know are running Firefox. I don't know a
> single one who relies on Safari.

The "Macsters" I know, use Safari. I´ve shown some of them Camino, but they
usually still use Safari. That´s my part of reality. It´s nice to hear,
there are other users with different behaviour, too.

My point was, that, in my experience, the average user is simply too lazy
and not caring, if there are better programs for the same application. They
just use whatever is included with the complete package computer they buy -
no difference between Win and Mac users. It somehow works, so they don´t
think about the possibility, that something else might work better -even if
it´s available for free.

Phil

Phil W

June 20th 09, 06:15 AM

Laurence Payne wrote:
> Ken wrote:
>
>> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Microsoft-Internet-Explorer-EU-antitrust,8062.html
>
> You said:
> For example: the EU forces MS to ship Windows without the Internet
> Explorer (and without the Media Player) because they want to give
> equal chances to concurring browsers.

That thing about "concurring browsers" might be a translation error by me -
sorry, if that doesn´t make sense in English, but I´m not a native English
speaker. Others in this thread have used the term "competing browsers"
meanwhile...

Well, there´s a XP version, I think it´s called "-N", which comes without
Windows Media Player, due to a former EU decision a few years ago.
I admit, it may have sounded too harsh, but it´s how I understood an article
by the German IT website www.heise.de/ct (publishers of several IT
magazines) recently.
Anyway, the Opera makers actually had the idea, that Windows should not only
ship with IE, but also other browsers, so the users have a free choice which
browser they want to use. The EU folks in Brussels somehow made something
else out of it...

Anyway, competition can be a good thing in general. That doesn´t change
anything about the fact, that MS gets fined for distributing their OS with
their own internet browser while Apple can do exactly the same thing without
anybody caring about it. The "reason" is, that Apple/Safari has a much
smaller market share than MS/IE, but the principle is the same. Apple may
sell a "complete solution package" with everything necessary pre-installed
(internet browser, email software), so the users can start right off using
the web without having to worry about where to get the necessary programs
for these applications.
This does not mean, that I consider Microsoft´s IE and mail software better
than Apple´s, but why is one company fined for the same things that another
is still doing?!

> That link predicts how Windows 7 will be distributed. Rather a
> different thing.

This particular article relates to Windows 7, but there is definitely also a
(not very wide-spread, though) XP edition without WMP - I have seen it in
action. And there was something about XP also being shipped without IE - I´m
not sure, if that ever happened, but it was at least discussed some years
ago.

> For what it's worth, the evaluation copy of Windows 7 installed on one
> of my computers installed complete with all the usual utilities.

My evaluation copy of Win7 did the same, surprisingly. ;-)

Phil

Peter Larsen[_3_]

June 20th 09, 12:40 PM

Phil W wrote:

|| Laurence Payne wrote:
||| Ken wrote:
|||
||||
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Microsoft-Internet-Explorer-EU-antitrust,8062.html
|||
||| You said:
||| For example: the EU forces MS to ship Windows without the Internet
||| Explorer (and without the Media Player) because they want to give
||| equal chances to concurring browsers.

|| That thing about "concurring browsers" might be a translation error
|| by me - sorry,

concurrent, ie. on the market simultanously, sorry bout the typo.

|| Anyway, the Opera makers actually had the idea, that Windows should
|| not only ship with IE, but also other browsers, so the users have a
|| free choice which browser they want to use. The EU folks in Brussels
|| somehow made something else out of it...

OK, you want a safe browser and you want to know where to point the finger
if it isn't, then it is IE. Put another browser on the box and all bets are
off. Especically in case of misprogrammed stuff that can't even uninstall
cleanly and Firefox couldn't when I tried it a couple of years ago, I had to
fix the registry manually on that box.

|| Anyway, competition can be a good thing in general.

Yes, but right now what you have is a pair of oligopolies, the wintel world
and the linux world, there is no diversity.

|| For what it's worth, the evaluation copy of Windows 7 installed on
|| one of my computers installed complete with all the usual utilities.
|
| My evaluation copy of Win7 did the same, surprisingly. ;-)

US version prolly.

|| Phil

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Phil W

June 21st 09, 04:04 PM

Peter Larsen wrote:
> Phil W wrote:
>
>>> Laurence Payne wrote:
>>>> Ken wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Microsoft-Internet-Explorer-EU-antitrust,8062.html
>>>>
>>>> You said:
>>>> For example: the EU forces MS to ship Windows without the Internet
>>>> Explorer (and without the Media Player) because they want to give
>>>> equal chances to concurring browsers.
>
>>> That thing about "concurring browsers" might be a translation error
>>> by me - sorry,
>
> concurrent, ie. on the market simultanously, sorry bout the typo.

As I said, I´m not a native English speaker and in many cases, I´m not sure,
which translation is the "correct" one, when the dictionary gives me various
options.

>>> Anyway, the Opera makers actually had the idea, that Windows should
>>> not only ship with IE, but also other browsers, so the users have a
>>> free choice which browser they want to use. The EU folks in Brussels
>>> somehow made something else out of it...
>
> OK, you want a safe browser and you want to know where to point the
> finger if it isn't, then it is IE. Put another browser on the box and
> all bets are off. Especically in case of misprogrammed stuff that
> can't even uninstall cleanly and Firefox couldn't when I tried it a
> couple of years ago, I had to fix the registry manually on that box.

I´ve also had some strange experiences with Firefox. It seems, that the
cache is not really "emptied", after one hit the according button in the
settings menu. Besides that, FF has other faults than IE or other browsers.
The main problem these days is, that too much software isn´t programmed
really good. As long as it works somehow, it gets thrown out to the public -
more than too often even as commercial software.

>>> Anyway, competition can be a good thing in general.
>
> Yes, but right now what you have is a pair of oligopolies, the wintel
> world and the linux world, there is no diversity.

pretty well described! :-\ Another problem is, that the EU politicians don´t
have enough technical understanding to judge such things. Sometimes I have
the impression, they even lack the understanding for anything besides their
own payment, but that´s another story...

>>> For what it's worth, the evaluation copy of Windows 7 installed on
>>> one of my computers installed complete with all the usual utilities.
>>
>> My evaluation copy of Win7 did the same, surprisingly. ;-)
>
> US version prolly.

I have the German version RC1 installed, but the EU thing came later, so
it´s not yet implemented...

Phil