4 ms·

I do not believe that Apple has ever offered the "greatest computers ever released for Pros". For example, the MacBook Pro is more Prosumer than Pro when compar

by willtim 10y ago

I do not believe that Apple has ever offered the "greatest computers ever released for Pros". For example, the MacBook Pro is more Prosumer than Pro when compared to a Lenovo Thinkpad P70 with a 17" 4K display, Xeon CPU and 64GB of RAM. EDIT: designed for heavy sustained CPU applications

shlant 10y ago
You realize that what made Apple good for "Pros" is not based purely on specs right? That is a very shallow view of the issue. For music production and live events for example, the reliability, stability, compatibility and application support is why many chose Apple. To think that professionals choose hardware based on specs alone means you don't really understand the reasoning.
- willtim 10y ago
  Yes, it's not just about specs. I didn't mean to imply it was. Apple also optimise for an ultra thin/light chassis and battery life. These are not what you want for sustained high CPU applications with a real-time requirement. A mobile workstation running a stable build of Windows 7 would certainly give stable audio. My reasoning matches that of the article: Apple's yearly software/OS upgrades and Prosumer hardware are not giving the "reliability, stability, compatibility and application support" that you claim.
  - subway 10y ago
    Note GP said chose, not choose. Almost as though this entire thread were on the topic of how Apple was formerly great for professionals.
    - willtim 10y ago
      Ah good point. I did indeed not spot the "chose".
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  As someone who moved from the Windows to the Apple ecosystem several years ago but who still builds out support for Windows, reliability and stability in the Windows ecosystem has been a non-issue for many years now (and for the few years preceding that was largely a factor of crappy third-party drivers).
soundwave106 10y ago
From my (limited) perspective, a lot of what made Apple great for professionals is much better software under the hood, starting from the bottom up. Looking at music applications, for instance, my first impression was that the Core Audio and Core Midi APIs were a heck of a lot better for developers than the Windows equivalent (Win32 I believe for MIDI still, and ASIO for any serious audio). There's even a bigger contrast in mobile: Core Audio and Core MIDI on iOS seem to blow away Android's primitive very primitive audio APIs. (I have done actual development in neither so if anyone has feel free to chime in, this is just from skimming the specs online.) Happier developers with more rock solid foundations leads to better applications that utilize audio / MIDI (such as music apps) and therefore a better vibe among actual musicians. Apple was always known among artists that I know as the computer that Just Worked and was stable. It's actually hard to think of a show (where the musician used a laptop) where it wasn't an Apple, to be honest. Unfortunately, in the last couple of years, I've heard a fair amount of grumbling about Apple instability. I think they're in danger of losing their formally solid reputation.
- willtim 10y ago
  Apple was popular with musicians pre-OSX though. So I'm not sure that the modern APIs explain it. Logic has arguably become more unstable since the Apple acquisition and its modernisation. The Atari ST running Steinberg was probably the high point of stability for me. Regarding OSX, IMHO I don't believe it is particularly well suited to audio work, and the same argument applies to Windows. AFAIK both have no true realtime capability, such that a minimum amount of CPU resource can be guaranteed for an audio stream so that it is glitch free. QNX Neutrino and RTLinux offer this, but their use has typically been embedded systems. A live gig is therefore always a gamble. Some background process, like software update or icloud, could spring into action and cause glitches at any time. This is made worse by power management that throttles down your CPU and sleeps your IO devices.

by willtim 10y ago

shlant 10y ago

You realize that what made Apple good for "Pros" is not based purely on specs right? That is a very shallow view of the issue. For music production and live events for example, the reliability, stability, compatibility and application support is why many chose Apple. To think that professionals choose hardware based on specs alone means you don't really understand the reasoning.

willtim 10y ago
Yes, it's not just about specs. I didn't mean to imply it was. Apple also optimise for an ultra thin/light chassis and battery life. These are not what you want for sustained high CPU applications with a real-time requirement. A mobile workstation running a stable build of Windows 7 would certainly give stable audio. My reasoning matches that of the article: Apple's yearly software/OS upgrades and Prosumer hardware are not giving the "reliability, stability, compatibility and application support" that you claim.
- subway 10y ago
  Note GP said chose, not choose. Almost as though this entire thread were on the topic of how Apple was formerly great for professionals.
  - willtim 10y ago
    Ah good point. I did indeed not spot the "chose".
FireBeyond 10y ago
As someone who moved from the Windows to the Apple ecosystem several years ago but who still builds out support for Windows, reliability and stability in the Windows ecosystem has been a non-issue for many years now (and for the few years preceding that was largely a factor of crappy third-party drivers).

soundwave106 10y ago

From my (limited) perspective, a lot of what made Apple great for professionals is much better software under the hood, starting from the bottom up. Looking at music applications, for instance, my first impression was that the Core Audio and Core Midi APIs were a heck of a lot better for developers than the Windows equivalent (Win32 I believe for MIDI still, and ASIO for any serious audio). There's even a bigger contrast in mobile: Core Audio and Core MIDI on iOS seem to blow away Android's primitive very primitive audio APIs. (I have done actual development in neither so if anyone has feel free to chime in, this is just from skimming the specs online.) Happier developers with more rock solid foundations leads to better applications that utilize audio / MIDI (such as music apps) and therefore a better vibe among actual musicians. Apple was always known among artists that I know as the computer that Just Worked and was stable. It's actually hard to think of a show (where the musician used a laptop) where it wasn't an Apple, to be honest. Unfortunately, in the last couple of years, I've heard a fair amount of grumbling about Apple instability. I think they're in danger of losing their formally solid reputation.

willtim 10y ago
Apple was popular with musicians pre-OSX though. So I'm not sure that the modern APIs explain it. Logic has arguably become more unstable since the Apple acquisition and its modernisation. The Atari ST running Steinberg was probably the high point of stability for me. Regarding OSX, IMHO I don't believe it is particularly well suited to audio work, and the same argument applies to Windows. AFAIK both have no true realtime capability, such that a minimum amount of CPU resource can be guaranteed for an audio stream so that it is glitch free. QNX Neutrino and RTLinux offer this, but their use has typically been embedded systems. A live gig is therefore always a gamble. Some background process, like software update or icloud, could spring into action and cause glitches at any time. This is made worse by power management that throttles down your CPU and sleeps your IO devices.