Has anyone else read the article that\'s linked to on the main TASCAM Gigastudio site ( Giga in a Mac World )? Now I\'m not working with Macs and I don\'t know why they\'re so popular. But I don\'t see why you can\'t sequence on a PC.
And I really wonder if it\'s true that all other soft-samplers are just toys. At least Michiel\'s contest demos (some of) which were done on Kontakt, seem to prove otherwise. ...
Ah.. the OS battle again [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
Traditionally Mac has had the advantage over PC\'s that it is a standard. With PC\'s we have all kinds of different hardware in all kinds of combinations. This off course, makes it somewhat (alot!) harder to create stability in an OS. Apple knows what hardware they\'re OS is gonna run on.
Windows 9x is probably responsible for much of the \"hate\" against PC\'s. It never was very stable, and it is not very well built. Even winME and the latest releases contain several major bugs. (I\'m not saying you can\'t get it to run pretty stable and make it work, but it is NOT a great OS)
Today however, with win2k/xp and carefully selecting components for the PC, my opinion is that both platforms (Mac/PC) are fully capable of working as (for instance) a sequencer/daw in a demanding environment.
..the bad reputation of windows9x will without a doubt influence people who first was introduced to that [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
Thanks for your reply, BlueNote. I\'m sure you\'re right about the OS-battle issue. I was just wondering because I\'ve never had a /sequencer/ crash my Windows system. Dedicated GS-machines on the other hand ... [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]
But never mind, I guess TASCAM\'s marketing statements don\'t necessarily have to be agreed with.
I think its pretty obvious why so many people are using Macs for their sequencer machines \'cos that\'s where all the sequencers are. If you\'re not a Cakewalk or Cubase user(or even if you _are_ a Cubase user) then you\'re using a Mac for sequencing.
A box is a box is a box... My Mac hs Digital Performer, Photoshop, word processing, net access, games and some audio editing tools. It\'s reasonably stable until deadlines approach! [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]
If i rebuild it to be just a dedicated sequencer, it will be perfectly stable, but I won\'t do that because I refuse to buy any more Mac products till OS9 vs OSX is fully resolved. To upgrade now means I have to repurchase every piece of software I own - again! And Apple already got me when they dropped ADB. I had to buy a new printer, scanner, graphics tablet and SCSI card when I bought my B&W, and then found out Apple lied when they said it could be upgraded to a G4. Eventually a patch was created as a work-around, so i got the G4, a week before the company tanked.
So I use DP 2.7, Photoshop 4 (it prints perfectly on the Mac, the PC drivers NEVER give me accurate results. And get performance I\'d rate 7 of 10.
One of my PCs (with Atmosphere an the B4 organ) runs XP with no problems except an occasional CHKDSK on booting. And my primary GS box with only GS on it does what most users seem to get - usually stable, occasional crash or CWE on boot.
box is a box s a box. They are machines, and machinmes occasionally fail. So? Would you rather do it by hand?