Originally Posted by RagingCain
You specified the entertainment industry, which is all encompassing, not the recording industry which is specific segment of that. If software you are using runs better on a quad core, than a hexacore, it is not efficiently multi-threaded, which is something all platforms are afflicted by. Again, you are talking about preferences, and will continue to do so, unless you prove it with some sort of numerical analysis. Which no Mac users has thoroughly described his experience. The best I can seem to come up with other than "it just works" or "its just more reliable" is akin to what this YouTube user Justin's Big Idea had regarding Steam (source
) Until you provide actual benchmarks in filtering audio, ripping audio, editing audio is actually better everything you say is just technically opinion.
If its software you are after, then I have already agreed that software is like flavor, your personal tastes will be different. My argument was not with that it may be easier for you, or that you may even prefer Macs, my initial quoting was that you claim it excels at everything else. Which is so broad an argument you are guaranteeing yourself to be wrong. There is no perfect system after all. You then key in on specific aspect, claiming that Macintosh is superior to Music Recording, but I have no experience in this industry. I highly doubt its because Mac's are physically superior, you agree with me in that they comprise (now a day's at least) that they are the same hardware or very similar. That leaves how it operates with software. I also noticed you have neglected to bring up any responses to Linux based software, which leads me to feel like this is a Windows PC vs Mac PC argument, which I don't want to be confused as being pro for either.
If you are operating a custom built 980x and operating the same software as a 2600 iMac akin system, and its finishing better / faster on the Mac, there are really only two reasons for this, there is a bug somewhere, or its not efficiently utilizing the 12 threads of the 980x. If its different recording software on different platforms then I anticipate there are many more variables at play, but as far as rendering or doing numerically intensive tasks, a well designed 980X system should be much more capable than quad-core Sandy Bridge. There is probably something configured wrong, or something seriously eating overhead on the 980X based system. I would expect that the system was correctly configured by the User after all spending so much on hardware. If you like out-of-the-box setups where you don't have to tweak or "work" with the OS like you do with custom built computers then they were the wrong choice from the get go, and you should have known that.
When you say "Sexy fruit logo" you kind of make your entire argument biased sounding as if I am attacking you. I gave logical and thought provoking reactions to what you wrote, please don't cheapen the experience with your ill placed sarcasm, we are allowed to discuss our differences of opinion. My entire beef was with your blanket statement of Apple's excel "at everything else", I can find many examples of where it does not excel at such as scientific computing for example, distributed computing, and large corporate workplace environments. My point / goal was to get you to see your statement was ill conceived, and that Macintosh's do things well, and should be recommend in their due place, but lets not make information up, only provide facts that are sourceable.