# Switching to PC



## composerguy78 (Jan 20, 2018)

I am considering switching to Windows and to be honest it’s not the music applications I’m concerned about, it’s switching from the whole Mac environment. All the machines in my house are macs and it’s the prospect of switching just my main machine to a Windows machine that concerns me a little. 

Would anyone care to share their experience of switching over? Any major headaches?


----------



## mixtur (Jan 20, 2018)

You have nothing to be concerned with, ive used both for years.
My custom PC is way more powerful though and it can do anything my Mac can in terms of music production capabilities. Well, it can’t run Logic Pro.

There are however many cool freeware effects and instruments that are only available for pc:s which is a plus.


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (Jan 20, 2018)

I am also back thinking the same. I work with Windows in IT and I find the system easier to tweak for performance.


----------



## Pier (Jan 20, 2018)

I'm mainly a mac guy but I also have a couple of gaming machines with Windows 10. I prefer using macOS but Windows 10 is the best version ever IMO and the hardware freedom is just amazing.

I don't think you are going to have any problems if your main purpose is to open your DAW and work. You will of course suffer at first with OS idiosyncrasies (keyboard shortcuts, settings, etc) but anyone switching from Windows to macOS will suffer the same problems.

Here are some pros and cons IMO:

*Pros of Windows*

Performance feels better than in macOS (windowing server, mouse is more responsive, etc)
You can build your computer in any way you wish (big, small, expensive, cheap, noisy, silent, etc)
Some software simply runs better in Windows (Cubase, games, Office, Adobe apps, etc)
The ecosystem is bigger than macOS
*Cons of Windows*

Cost of Windows license
The ecosystem is plagued by low quality Win32 apps
A lot of apps still don't support scaling on hi resolution displays
Text rendering is just awful
It's not as ugly as it used to be, but it's not as beautiful as macOS
When you hit a problem you really need to start fiddling with drivers, obscure settings, registry editor, etc
You have to start worrying about other stuff compared to macOS (virus, firmware versions, etc)
No access to Logic / Final Cut
I was facing the same decision lately and ended up buying a new iMac. My reasoning is that if money was no problem I'd choose macOS over Windows without a doubt and I spend 12+ hours every day working with my computer.


----------



## playz123 (Jan 20, 2018)

I use both on daily basis, and all I'll say there is little chance of my ever abandoning my Mac Pro and returning to Windows for my music. People claim that _some_ PCs are more powerful than _some_ Macs, and I won't debate that, but is a small performance difference really as important as some claim? And how much do you have to pay to get it? Performance on my MP is excellent, and isn't even of concern. And for ease of use and the ability to focus on music without a ton of headaches, dealing with misplaced .dll files, Registry issues, problems due to Microsoft etc., I'll just stick with my Mac, thanks. But this Mac/PC thing has been going on for as long as there have been computers, and there's never a definitive choice...just a constant flow of arguments. In brief, you can make great music on either platform, and switching from one platform to another isn't going to make you a better composer, or increase your productivity. Switching platforms mid-stream will indeed involve headaches, adjustments, and there will simply be some things that won't work. And if you already have a house full of Macs, please carefully consider why you want to open up a whole new 'can of worms', by moving everything music related to a PC. Not saying don't do it; just suggesting you think about it....as you are obviously doing. Certainly, if it also is of interest to see how the other half lives  or you are just curious and have the time, money, patience and energy to switch, then those of course are factors to consider as well. Me, I already made my decision years ago, and remain content with it. Now back to making music.


----------



## khollister (Jan 20, 2018)

I switched to PC's for music but I am taking delivery next week of a 10 core iMac Pro because I'm tired of dealing with the updates and tweaking on Windows. Like I said in another thread, I don't mind using Windows nearly as much as managing it.If you are fixated on extracting the last bit of performance for the lowest dollar, then a PC is your solution. If you just want a tool to make music without becoming an IT guy, stick to Macs IMHO.


----------



## heisenberg (Jan 20, 2018)

Unless you are using Cubase or Nuendo already, the economic argument for switching to Windows is a false economy in my opinion. And despite the bravado of some moving to Windows and toss aside Logic for Cubase, it is not a small endevour to learn a new DAW. It takes a huge amount of time and money to do this. There is also the issue of muscle memory. When I moved to Windows it took six months to become somewhat comfortable on Windows (this is looking back in hindsight) and about three years to become fluently ambidextrous in either Windows and a Mac and about five where I was thinking more Windows than Mac in terms of muscle memory. I was 21 years on a Mac and now 6.5 years on Windows full-time.

If you are moving to Windows because you have had it with Apple, that is another story.

I don't regret doing it, I needed high end videos cards for video editing and colour work, along with a proper desktop machine that had card slots but it was not a trivial exercise and not inexpensive when I look at all the apps and tools I bought over time to be thoroughly at home on my Windows box.

I would go back to a Mac but only if they came out with an innovative desktop computer that would rival the kind of hardware you can use on Windows.


----------



## Pier (Jan 21, 2018)

heisenberg said:


> I would go back to a Mac but only if they came out with an innovative desktop computer that would rival the kind of hardware you can use on Windows.



The next Mac Pro might satisfy that need.

For those out of the loop there was a meeting last year with Apple and some high end bloggers to announce that Apple is conscious about all the issues with the "trash can" mac pro and that it is working on a new modular model.

https://daringfireball.net/2017/04/the_mac_pro_lives

I thought about waiting for the next mac pro instead of buying an iMac, but I really don't need that much performance so I couldn't justify spending that kind of money. Personally I'm not attracted to the iMac Pro which IMO is a terrible investment.


----------



## khollister (Jan 21, 2018)

Pier Bover said:


> Personally I'm not attracted to the iMac Pro which IMO is a terrible investment.



That was my first thought as well. However, after thinking it through and running some numbers, I actually don't think it is as overpriced as many think and some of the upgradeability arguments are dubious. Consider:

The RAM is upgradeable, you just need to pay someone to do it for you. Not ideal, but considering the price of 32GB DIMM's, not something I plan on doing any time soon.
CPU upgrades have always sounded better than the economics indicate. Intel's CPU's do not go down in price appreciably these days regardless of how obsolete they are. The only reason CPU upgrades were cost effective in the Mac Pro's was because Xeons were available as server pulls from recyclers. And any hope of using new generation chips is dashed unless you replace the logic board (assuming one is available).
PCIe slots are nice for SSD and other I/O updates, but TB3 (and TBx going forward) is similar with the expense of external chassis.
I am not a video junkie so upgrading graphics cards/chips is a low priority for me
I went to StudioCat (Jim Rosenberry's shop) and priced out a fairly close equivalent of my iMac Pro - i9-7900, 64GB 2400 RAM, 2 x 1TB NVMe drives, TB3, mid-range graphics card, etc. The result? - $5300. Add in a 27" 5K monitor (LG UltraFine - $1200), and my $7400 iMP (10c, 64GB, 2TB) doesn't look nearly as bad compared to a $6500 PC (which still doesn't have 10Gb ethernet, to say nothing of Xeon vs i9 and ECC RAM).
I want a tool, not a project. I also wanted the 27" retina display. I considered waiting on the next MP, but I don't think it is going to be cheaper (display taken into account) and I had doubts about how much I would really "upgrade" it aside from RAM or larger internal SSD's.


----------



## Pier (Jan 21, 2018)

khollister said:


> That was my first thought as well. However, after thinking it through and running some numbers, I actually don't think it is as overpriced as many think and some of the upgradeability arguments are dubious. Consider:
> 
> The RAM is upgradeable, you just need to pay someone to do it for you. Not ideal, but considering the price of 32GB DIMM's, not something I plan on doing any time soon.
> CPU upgrades have always sounded better than the economics indicate. Intel's CPU's do not go down in price appreciably these days regardless of how obsolete they are. The only reason CPU upgrades were cost effective in the Mac Pro's was because Xeons were available as server pulls from recyclers. And any hope of using new generation chips is dashed unless you replace the logic board (assuming one is available).
> ...



I don't think it's overpriced when you consider the specs and the 5K monitor.

I do think it's a bad _long term_ investment though.

My main argument is that the iMac Pro is an SUV posing as a Land Rover, or in other words, a vehicle for camping enthusiasts and not pros that need to move though difficult terrain frequently.

Why do I think it's not a Land Rover?

1) It's not designed to sustain high work loads for extended periods of time since it cannot completely handle all the heat it generates. It easily runs at +90ºC when pushed. Apple has given more priority to reducing noise than cooling the CPU, even to the point of not being able to sustain 100% performance and throttling the CPU. See this video for more info.

Same strategy as the regular iMacs, which are no Land Rovers either. We all know using a SUV in difficult terrains frequently is a bad idea. The engine itself might not fail (CPU and GPU chips), but what about your transmission, suspension, tires, etc? (fans, power supply, etc).

2) It's not a flexible machine. It cannot be tailored for your needs and repairs will be expensive (if possible). Apple will not repair or sell parts of a product 5 years after it has stopped manufacturing it (except when required by law). This is not usually a problem for most products, but it is IMO for a supposed workhorse machine.

Comparing that $6500 PC to an iMac Pro is like comparing a Jeep Compass (iMac Pro) with a Land Rover (PC). For example you can configure that PC to run at 60-70ºC even under max loads with the appropriate cooling system. Any component can be upgraded or exchanged in a matter of minutes if you need or wish to.

Apple used to provide this kind of flexibility with the tower Mac Pros, and (in theory) will provide it again with the new Mac Pro.


----------



## khollister (Jan 21, 2018)

Pier Bover said:


> I don't think it's overpriced when you consider the specs and the 5K monitor.
> 
> I do think it's a bad _long term_ investment though.
> 
> ...



I’m not sure Land Rovers are the consummate off road vehicles they used to be - seems like most are driven by wealthy housewives here in the US

If I was planning on running video or 3D renders for hours, I might be more concerned about throttling but with typical music use, I’m not too worried. 

Besides, I need a Mac that is at least as powerful as my current 6850k, and their isn’t anything else. I’ll consider selling it for the 7.1 MP if and when it ships assuming it turns out to be what everyone is hoping for. I’m a little dubious about Apple delivering cheese grater 3.0. That just isn’t sexy enough for them


----------



## Pier (Jan 22, 2018)

khollister said:


> Besides, I need a Mac that is at least as powerful as my current 6850k, and their isn’t anything else.



The 7700K on the iMac is better on single thread performance and there's 10% difference in multithreading which won't make a difference for audio.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2800&cmp[]=2874

The problem is that the 7700K runs quite hot in the iMac and everyone says the fans are noisy. I recently bought the i5 7600K iMac for this reason.


----------

