oh dear - now I want a PC

Discussion in 'Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac' started by jrichie, Jun 2, 2009.

  1. jrichie macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Location:
    Aus
    #1
    I have just installed Windows 7 on bootcamp, and I really like it. I do love Apple and OSX, but the software I would like to use most [Acad, Revit, 3DS Max] are all windows based......

    Do I jump ship!!! Wish I didn't have these thoughts but MS has hit the nail with Windows 7 and is very tempting indeed.

    I wonder if Apple has some tricks up its sleeve to combat this one.

    BTW - I have been running my business on a mac for the last 3 years but still find it limited for design and architecture [I have vectorworks and have no interest in Archicad btw].

    It is becoming frustrating a little bit!
     
  2. uberamd macrumors 68030

    uberamd

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #2
    If it limits you, switch. I do a lot of programming and stuff so OS X is perfect for me. Plus I gave Windows enough chances and they dropped the ball too many times. I spend all day fixing Windows comps, its nice coming home to an environment thats stable :)
     
  3. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #3
    If you have a business to run, you owe it to yourself to use the OS and hardware that best allows you to run that business. It's your decision, but it doesn't come down to which OS you like best. It comes down to which OS makes you most productive and/or profitable. If that's Windows 7, then it's Windows 7.
     
  4. beg_ne macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #4
    No harm in using a VM or Bootcamp if you need to use those apps. Or even getting some dedicated PC's for those tools if need be.

    I don't think there is too much Apple can do as far as your specific app requirements go. All we can hope is that Autodesk gets more serious on OS X and gives us Autocad, 3DS Max, etc.

    They have some feelers out for Autocad at least. I wouldn't expect these tools to come out overnight however.
     
  5. Corrosive vinyl macrumors 6502

    Corrosive vinyl

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    #5
    I think that getting a PC to do PC things is logical. You can still use your mac for everything else. As stated above, if you need it for your school/business then you would be denying yourself something very helpful. You can always use bootcamp/paralells in the meantime, but if it is an every day or more then once a day occurance, a PC would be very useful.
     
  6. dejo Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
    #6
    Then you already have a PC! It happens to have an Apple logo on it. :)
     
  7. windywoo macrumors 6502a

    windywoo

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    #7
    If that Mac runs your applications well in bootcamp stick with it. If its starting to feel sluggish get a PC since its Windows apps you seem to need most. No sense in paying all that money for a new Mac if you are going to spend most of your time in Windows anyway.
     
  8. nza macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    #8
    edit: dejo beat me to it

    Why would you downgrade to a "PC".. when you already have one?
     
  9. rgarjr macrumors 603

    rgarjr

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Location:
    Southern Calif
  10. Stridder44 macrumors 68040

    Stridder44

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #10
    Then buy a PC and run Windows or use Boot Camp to run Windows on your Mac. Don't be so dramatic, you're acting like you've decided to switch religions or something.
     
  11. rgarjr macrumors 603

    rgarjr

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Location:
    Southern Calif
    #11
    I agree, I mean don't make it out to be a big deal, haha.
     
  12. elgrecomac macrumors 65816

    elgrecomac

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego
    #12
    Lol

    Stridder, you have the BEST posts! Keep it up.

    :D
     
  13. Plutonius macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #13
    Use what you need.
     
  14. Stridder44 macrumors 68040

    Stridder44

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #14
    Haha, thanks guy.
     
  15. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #15
    Yeah, I know the feeling. I've been on both platforms for years but I was ready to give up PC and replace my two main work machines (Dell tower + laptop) with a Mac Pro and an MBP 17"... then the Win7 RC came out and suddenly Windows came alive again after spending years in limbo with Vista, aka ME 2.

    OK, I thought... I'll still get the Macs and run Win7 in BootCamp. I placed an order for a Mac Pro last week, but then I changed my mind and cancelled it after the weekend, thinking I'll get the MBP 17" first (whenever it's refreshed, which shouldn't be too long) and the workstation later.

    But then I went to dell.se and started tinkering with a Precision T3500 configuration... let's see, the Mac Pro quad 2.66 w/ 6 GB RAM, a single 1 TB drive and 3Y APP was 32,969 SEK... I'll build a T3500 with the exact same options... huh, only 19,406 SEK?? Hmmm, my budget is still around 32,000 SEK so let's toy around with all these nice options... I'll bump the 2,66 to 2,93... throw in 12 GB RAM... a 768 MB NVidia Quadro FX1800... 300 GB 10,000 RPM Raptor drive... 3Y on-site support included for free so that frees up another 3,000 SEK I would've paid for APP... and still only at 30,318 SEK total, less than the Mac. Add a second 300 GB Raptor and it's a tie.

    Argh! The Mac Pro sure is pretty, and runs OS X... but as a Win7 platform in BootCamp it's dwarfed by the cheaper Dell with its 12 GB RAM, two snappy Raptor drives, the 2.93 GHz processor and a video card that makes the GT120 look like something out of a Commodore 64.

    Hmm. Alright, what the heck, I'll bump the Mac Pro config to something closer to the Dell then. Let's see... 2.93... 8 GB RAM 'cuz there's only 4 slots, can't get to 12 with stock parts... I'll throw in the ATI HD4870 as well, and... YIKES, 41,599 SEK!! What did you put in that aluminium, 24K gold?

    OK, so the Dell it is. But wait... the Mac Pro is so gorgeous on the inside. But... why do I even care about that? It's not like I'm gonna be camping in there. Pretty guts isn't going to keep the T3500 from running circles around it.

    Sigh. I might just get the T3500 instead of the Mac Pro, but still get the MBP 17".
     
  16. dejo Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
    #16
    Doubtful...
     
  17. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #17
    Doubtful how?

    It's an identical Nehalem processor.
    It's 1066 MHz ECC RAM, could be from another manufacturer or the same one.
    The drives are either from Seagate or WD, no difference there.
    I get a DVD writer, or "SuperDrive" in Apple speak.
    If I get the low-end 512 MB Quadro FX580 I'm probably very close to Apple's stock GT120, you never know with NVidia's crazy rebranding schemes.
    I get a 525W PSU, a motherboard and a couple of 120mm fans.
    The case is the exact same size if you remove the handles and, err, 'feet' from the Mac Pro.

    I will however not get the aluminium casing, Bluetooth, Apple keyboard or OS X, if that's what you're having doubts about.

    On the other hand the Mac Pro doesn't offer a BluRay option, 6 memory slots and up to 24 GB stock RAM, or the 3.2 GHz option... so yes there are differences, obviously, but the config I selected is very close.
     
  18. dejo Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
  19. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #19
    Oh, I thought you had a point, but it was just about petty semantics then.

    The big items - processor, RAM, hard drives, optical, GPU - range from near identical to identical. You can start protesting when I claim that a Mac Pro is exactly the same as a Shetland pony.

    Those five make up the lion's share of the cost of the machine. Whatever discrepancies there are outside of those, don't even begin to explain a price difference of 32969-19406=13563 SEK ($1761).
     
  20. dejo Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
    #20
    I'm liable to protest whenever someone says "exactly" when they actually meant "similarly". The semantics of "exact" are hardly questionable.

    As for the discrepancy, pricing is more often dictated by what the market will bear than the actual costs of the components themselves. In other words, "why does Apple sell the Mac Pro for that price? Because they can."
     
  21. 22Hertz macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    #21
    I switched to Apple almost 2 years ago and there has been one very apparent flaw I have noticed...the software companies write for Windows and not Apple.

    I have to have a PC to use Autocad, Solidworks, Spice and a few other specialized apps.

    I much prefer OSX, and I think Windows 7 is not that impressive BUT Apple charges ridiculous prices for their hardware and as long as you get less for the money, keeping the masses away from Apple, not many software companies are going to create all the apps we need, and that appears to be especially true in the engineering sector.
    Face it, for your needs a PC works best and will be cheaper.

    And while it is true PCs have many, many aggravating problems which OSX seems to not suffer from I can say after having an application specific PC with only the apps I need installed (very few) and staying off the network I don't have many problems with it.

    Until Apple entices software companies to write apps for the platform the Macintosh is not a viable solution (for engineers anyway)
     
  22. Sehnsucht macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    #22
    Anuba, it sounds like you should hold out until your budget is double, and get both the Precision and the Mac Pro. ;) Both have their redeeming qualities, it seems. I myself ALMOOOOST settled on a Hackintosh but decided to hold out for a few more months and save a bit more money, and damn I'm glad I did. Check my sig, I am now the proud owner of a shiny MBP handcrafted by Steve himself...ok not really. :p

    But you know...your original plan to get the Macs and Boot Camp Windows 7 sounds perfect to me. The Mac Pro is probably the best-suited Mac for this purpose anyway.
     
  23. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #23
    Well, there are plenty of software companies that develop Mac versions of their products (even Microsoft...!), but Apple has been a bit shifty when it comes to nurturing these relationships.

    I work in graphics and music/audio, and I'm very dependent Adobe's Creative Suite and Steinberg's Cubase. The problem is, these apps work and perform better on Windows, and I think part of the reason is the frosty relationship between Apple and these two companies.

    Cubase, the best-selling music app in software history, was made by Steinberg, founded by Charlie Steinberg who was once partners with Gerhard Lengeling. They split up and became fierce competitors; Gerhard started a company called C-Lab (later Emagic) and released two products called Creator and Notator to compete with Steinberg's PRO-24. Then Steinberg released Cubase, and had the upper hand for a while until Emagic responded with a Cubase clone called Logic. Charlie and Gerhard eventually smoked the peace pipe and Emagic+Steinberg were on good terms. Until, of course, Apple screwed up everything by 1) acquiring Emagic, 2) immediately discontinuing the Windows version of Logic in a shameless effort to force Logic users to become involuntary switchers. And then after a couple of years, Apple resorted to price dumping by slashing Logic's pricetag in half, which they can afford to do because they make tons on the computer hardware. The competitors who rely on software sales alone were forced to follow suit. Unsurprisingly, former Atari and Mac lovers Steinberg now had a new favorite platform: Windows. Their grudge against Apple/Emagic has resulted in the Mac version of Cubase becoming more and more unattended; as of today the performance is radically better in the Windows version and word is that it's particularly bad on Nehalem Macs.

    The situation with Adobe is somewhat similar. Out of the blue, Apple decided to become Adobe's #1 competitor through the release of software like Final Cut, Motion and Aperture (with the usual price dumping, of course). Adobe became very grumpy and responded by discontinuing Premiere and After Effects for Mac (they brought them back recently, though), and to this day they seem to show just a little more love for the PC version of CS. For example, if you want Photoshop in full 64-bit glory you have to use the Windows version, which has led some Mac Pro users to reluctantly do all their Photoshopping in BootCamp.

    So yeah, it feels a bit weird to use Mac software from companies who secretly hate Apple... I half expect them to crash or just short fuse the machine out of pure spite. ;)

    That's an alternative too, but in any event I think I should hold off buying the Mac Pro now due to the pricing weirdness.

    In the US, the basic Mac Pro is $2499, and the MacBook Pro 17" is $2799, right? Would you buy the Mac Pro right now if the prices were reversed? Because that's how it is here in Sweden... the Mac Pro is roughly $250 more than the MBP 17". In USD prices it would translate to something like $2699 for the MBP 17" and $2999 for the Mac Pro quad 2.66.

    This is only because Apple's prices are very static and insensitive to currency fluctuations. The MBP was introduced in November '08 when the US dollar was cheap, the Mac Pro in March '09 when the US dollar was temporarily very expensive for about a week before dropping back to November '08 levels... so the next time the MP is refreshed they will probably have to slash $250 off the price, and that's when I'll buy one. With Dell this isn't an issue because they update their prices all the time, so I wouldn't have to pay extra for a USD spike that happened 3 months ago. :( :D
     
  24. valvehead macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #24
    Grudge? That's a bit of a stretch. They just rewrote the entire app in Cocoa. It's no surprise that things are a little rocky at the moment, but it seems to me like Steinberg is still firmly committed to both platforms.

    I haven't upgraded to C5 yet, but C4 is running great for me under OS X. Exposé is a godsend. Aero Peek just doesn't compare. I don't think I could ever go back to using Cubase on the Windows side. Concerning speed, I have yet to run into any slowness, so the Windows version supposedly being faster is a moot point for me.
     
  25. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #25
    Right, but you should probably check out the wailing wall over at cubase.net... lots of complaints from Mac users there right now. It seems everyone's complaining about performance, especially owners of Nehalem machines since the Mac version doesn't support hyperthreading. The current recommendation is to disable hyperthreading or have fun with 3 instances of VST instruments before the CPU chokes. The Mac camp has been expressing a general sentiment of abandonment for a while now (before C5 even).

    Exposé is great, but Spaces is even better for this purpose. I use a three screen setup though (4960x1600) so it's kind of a moot point for me. No window manipulation required.

    I could go either way, but I prefer Mac strictly out of principle. Even though it works perfectly fine on Windows these days, there's something fundamentally wrong about tricking an office computer that lacks native low-latency audio into thinking it's a DAW. You need a third party ASIO driver and a few tweaks to make it work, and you're still not able to use multiple audio interfaces simultaneously. It works, but it's just... wrong. With CoreAudio you have low latency out of the box and you can build aggregate audio devices so that you can use one interface for output and another interface from another manufacturer for input.
     

Share This Page