(OT) The Quest for the Best OS

No no. That is not a tongue twister, its a question that has been on my mind for a while now.

I've heard a lot about the pro's and con's of Windows, Mac, Linux, ect...

I just want to hear the opinions of the people here.

Keep in mind that this is for video and sound processing.

 

BEGIN BIASED POST

I use a Mac for filmmaking at home and at school. I like the interface better than PCs, and Macs have the advantage in the software world in the 'artistic' things (art, video, music, etc.)... possibly the only software thing we have the upper hand in.

If nothing else, ya gotta show the love to Final Cut Pro.

END BIASED POST


Rick MAC-Callum loves you! (Get it? I changed Mc to Mac! I AM TEH FUNNY! )

 

Rick MAC-Callum! lol. I find that funny

Anyway thanks for the info, dose anyone else have any helpful suggestions?

 

I like window XP. It has way way more softwarethan a mac and it has been running smoothly since last summer when i got it.

 

Go for a Mac. The OS X is super-stable. I've had my mac since August last year, and it has NEVER crashed. Never ever. Go for Mac OS X. It's extremely beautiful and easy to use-- its very intuitive.

For your video-editing needs, go for Final Cut Pro. It is awesome. Awesome, I tell you. There's no way I can summarize its features, so if you are interested, look here.

Macs rule. Even though they may not be as fast, the ease of use is worth it.

--Colin

 

I like Windows XP and I might get Linux someday in addition to XP.

 

You should've named this thread "Big ol' fat can of worms."

You are going to get lots of opinions here that won't have anything to do with your personal taste. And quite frankly, most of the opinions will be based on personal comfort and have nothing to do with what is really the best.
Every OS has it's pros and cons. Every OS has legions of diehard followers. There is no right answer. It really all comes down to what you want to use.

I use Windows 2000 primarily. One machine in my house uses 98. Another uses Linux.

I don't use 2k becuase I think it's the best. I use it because it's fast and stable. But above all, I use it because of the broad support base by developers and users that is not enjoyed by Mac or Linux. That's what's most important to me.
Point #2 is that I have always been more comfortable in the PC environment that allows much stronger back-end customization of the system.

Now point #2 is really the most important for you. Comfort, familiarity, and ease of use. Don't let anyone tell you what is the best OS. Go with what you're comfortable with. Any and all software you'll need is available for ANY of the 3 most popular OS's.
If you like Mac, go full bore with the best Mac setup you can get. If you like PC's, get Win2k (I seriously do not recommend XP no matter what anyone else thinks). And, if you're adventerous and really like to tinker with your machine go with Linux. But, there's a serious learning curve there if you've never used a Unix based OS before.

To summarize the facts:
Win2k: Fast, stable, lots of software, lots of support, developers almost always develop for Win first.
Mac: Great new OS, simple interface, stable. Not much in the way of developer support, most expensive of the 3 here.
Linux: Fast, VERY stable, lots of software, but very ambigous and sketchy support, quite difficult to configure and get the hang of. By far the cheapest. It's free!!

 

I run Windows XP because of the large amount of software and hardware for it.

Macs are good because of their interface and OS X running on a UNIX core. I believe that Mac programming is easier than Windows but I don't really know because I've only programmed Windows.

Maybe someday Mac software will be more available.

Until then, I'll be a Windows guy.

 

hmmmm

i currently run windows 98 and XP

i use 98 on this computer becouse its an old slow machine and isnt used for any effects oor anything no games just net and assignments

i dont like xp much its a ram hog but thats the machine i do all my editing on its a pretty good machine i use it for games and editing

i wanna change xp to windows 2000 as ive been working with this sstem at TAFE and its by far my favorite of the windows seris


Linux is nice i quite enjoy working in linux
but i have only had a lil experience with it at TAFE i dont have the knowledge to use it day to day

Mac ewwwwww its a mac has kinda been my view with macs scince i used them in school i just dont like them
but that my personal opion

 

I used to hate Macs, but then I started using OSX back in April. I immediately fell in love. Since then I have gotten a Powerbook and I couldn't be happier. Like everyone's said, they are the most stable. If you have enough money, they can be just as fast as PCs (Dual 1.42 Ghz). If you are thinking about a Mac though, wait until the summer when the latest upgrade for OS X (10.3 - Panther) is released.
But it's like everyone has said, play around with everything as much as you can. It's the only way to make a good decision you'll be happy with.

 

in my opinion....mac is best for visual stuff. because of the software and the reliablility of it......and microsoft is the best for every thing else......becasue it is the most compatible.

the diffrence in the company...is that each new version is a improvment......where as windows is not as good as it could be....because that way u'll spend ur money to get the better version next year
i was told that windows xp (i mean the way that it works) could have been released in 98....but he didn't so he could pull more money out of our pockects.

 

Mac is the best for Audio/Visual generally. But its expensive.

WIndows is best for...ummm...support. It is the most common OS, and 2000 and XP are the better of the bunch, if you get XP, get Pro.

Linux is the best if you want stability, compatibility, reliability. It lacks in software though. And it has a steep learning curve for most people. BUt its generally free!

 

Yes, Mac is delicious as a computing system solely because of OSX and FCP.

Sadly, there are two reasons why it's not for everyone:

1) It's slow. Really slow. Evidence. More evidence

2) It's expensive. Really expensive. Compare the base model for the G4 "Extreme" to the base for the 3.06GHz model of the Gateway 700XL Digital Filmmaker. For $500 more, the Gateway comes with two 18" LCD monitors, a Pinnacle package including Edition and Commotion, 500 GB storage, and 5.1 speakers. The Mac has no monitors, no reasonable speakers, and only 120 gigs of storage. It doesn't come with software beyond Apple freebies, and by the time you outfit it with FCP, dual monitors, and speakers, you're at $5000 to $8000.

And it will still be slower.

Thus, Mac is not for me, since I value efficiency and my wallet (I like the speed and I prefer to spend my money in a way that I have some left for software and camera equipment).

If I had the cash, I'd get a Mac. But I'd keep my PC, too.

 

Im running OS X. Ive never had a problems with it.

 

One of my freelance clients has an outrageous setup for himself. He does a cooking show for the local cable channel. He does all the filming/editing right from his Mac Powerbook. He spent about $12,000 on this setup including all the cameras, lights, and the Powerbook.

He has direct live Firewire running. He has four cameras all running through one mixing board. So someone sits there and changes between the cameras, essentially doing the editing live. All of it is recorded through the FireWire into FCP. Then, he just exports it to a DV tape and sends it off.

In all my years, I've yet to see a comparable setup for any Win based machine. I've never seen anything quite so simple and self contained.

Another point about this is that, this guy doesn't know from computer... That's why he's one of my clients. He pays me to keep all his systems (that he knows nothing about) running.

I just thought I would share that story with everyone.

 

hoo boy- so far things have been pretty tame, but let me tell you my tale of woe...

I'm a Macintosh certified technician and I'm a Microsoft Certified System Engineer by trade, but I'm a Mac guy through and through. I bought a G4 Dual 867 with Superdrive last fall for about 1700. Worked great- NEVER crashed- working with video was silky smooth- Final Cut Pro, After Effects, Lightwave, Premiere, Photoshop, Cleaner, Commotion- all of them running great!

...and then I sold it. I was in a position where I needed to upgrade my windows PC and I needed some cash to fund my new fan film. So I eBay'd the Mac and was able to buy a 2.8 Ghz XP box AND fund my fan film off the proceeds from the sale. I hated to see it go, but financially it made sense. I can still do everything I did on the Mac with the PC (although I didn't get a DVD burner and really miss iDVD) but I have noticed a few things...

The PC is not as responsive when handling Microsoft DV files. There is a noticeable delay when shuttling M$ DV footage which makes it more difficult for precise editing. Quicktime DV was just instantly responsive.
The PC is faster when rendering files from AE and Cleaner, but it has difficulty if you try to do more than one thing at a time. Rendering a file and want to surf the web on the PC? VERY sluggish- On the Mac, I could be burning a DVD, surfing the web, and compressing a video in Cleaner all at the same time without a significant hit in performance.
XP hasn't locked up on me, but the apps crash out on me nearly every day. If I had a nickle for everytime XP wanted to send a report to Microsoft because of a crashed program... well, I'd have a lot of nickles.
So- what's my final verdict?
Macs have good points and bad points. PCs have good points and bad points. Both can get the job done. The End.

 

The PC is not as responsive when handling Microsoft DV files. There is a noticeable delay when shuttling M$ DV footage which makes it more difficult for precise editing.

I occaisionally notice this myself. One thing to do is to get a 7200 RPM hard drive, another is to defragment, and another is to use RAID. Still, that is a legitimate issue.

The PC is faster when rendering files from AE and Cleaner, but it has difficulty if you try to do more than one thing at a time.

Well, what do you expect from a single-processor PC compared to a dual? For the multitasking of dual-processors, nothing beats a dual-processor machine (those exist in PC hardware, ya know). Saying that PCs can't handle it when you compared a single processor to two processors is kinda like comparing two apples to a single orange. "Well, with the single orange I can only eat half as much! Oranges are bad!" <-- clever analogy

Hyperthreaded Pentium 4's also help in this case.

XP hasn't locked up on me, but the apps crash out on me nearly every day.

Which is why as a PC person I still have great reverence for OSX.

 

I notice that a lot of times when footage takes a while to update while scrubbing it has more to do with compression than anything else. Basically, every time you move to a new frame, it has to decompress and then render it. More RAM helps, faster RAM helps, faster/more VRAM helps a lot too.
But, I think the best way to beat this problem is to use uncompressed footage. It's less work for the machine that way.

Keep in mind also that the Mac processors are optimized to handle certain type of calculations MUCH faster than PC processors. This is why some applications may not run as fast, but some aspects of the apps are MUCH faster.

I don't know the specifics behind this, but I can give a good example.
I ran SETI@Home on a PII 600 right next to the same program on a Mac G3. The G3 runs like a dog for normal opperation, but it ran calculations for SETI about 300% faster than the PIII. It would take the Mac about 20 hours to analyze one packet where it took the PIII over 3 days!

Imagine my surprise.

 

First time I ran SETI was next to a kid at computer camp. We started at the same time.

Me = P3 500MHz

Him = iMac DV G3

My time: 16 hours/segment

His time: 4 segments/two weeks

 

Evidently those iMac CPUs are nowhere near as fast as the one I was using.

I had both machines in my cube at my old job. They both ran the program for about 2 years straight. In fact, I left the Mac running when I got layed off. It could still be analyzing data for all I know.

 

I used PCs when I was in school (go Noles!) but I work on a Mac now. We've already gone over all the technical differences, so I won't get into that. The thing I love about the Mac is my 20" cinema screen. I don't have to keep moving tool bars out of the way. There's pleanty of room for everything. Plus FCP is unquestionably superior to Premiere. Now whether it's better than a full Avid system - that's another can of worms!

 

quote-"The PC is faster when rendering files from AE and Cleaner, but it has difficulty if you try to do more than one thing at a time.

Well, what do you expect from a single-processor PC compared to a dual? For the multitasking of dual-processors, nothing beats a dual-processor machine (those exist in PC hardware, ya know). Saying that PCs can't handle it when you compared a single processor to two processors is kinda like comparing two apples to a single orange. "Well, with the single orange I can only eat half as much! Oranges are bad!" <-- clever analogy

Hyperthreaded Pentium 4's also help in this case.
"

I'm well aware of the advantages of dual over single processors, but even on my single processor G4-400 at work, OSX still handles those functions with less frustration than doing it on my 2.8 Ghz PC. OSX just handles mulithreadng and multitasking better than XP. I've not used any Hyperthreaded PCs so I can't speak to the "improvements" it adds.

Also- in regard to the MS DV issue, I am running a 7200 RPM drive- however if I convert the file to Quicktime DV I get the improved response time that I was used to on the Mac. Unfortunately I can't capture in anything other than MS DV, so unless I want to convert every file to Quicktime DV I just live with the annoyance.

 

Ok, so what I've have here is... PC's are good, Mac's are good, Linix is good, It's all good. And that's ok, I had a feeling that is what people would say. Different people like different soft ware.
I still have a question that needs to be answered.

You see right now I am a Windows man. I have a PIII 600Mhz Pc. What I am going to be doing over the next few years is making a small visual effects studio. So I'm going to have multiple machines. So I want to know which would be mast practical for this. I know some machines will cost a lot more, but I don't want them over night so cost isn't to big of a deal. So which is better, stay with Windows, or go Mac?

Here is a list of what I want(to better describe for you):

Mostly stable(won't crash every day)
Powerful
Fast
Able to do complex tasks
Do them efficiently and quick
Is compatible with most things(not things like modems or vd cards)
Don't think Linux is for me

Not only the machine, but what kind of setup would help. (I heard someone say something about how computers can share processors? Could this speed things up?)

 

It depends on the software you want to use. Final Cut Pro is only available for Mac. I'm not sure if Shake is available for Windows or not. Avid can be used with both systems. Look into the software you want to be using and see which system is best.

 

K, here is the software I might use:
FCP
Premiere
After Effects
Photoshop
Combustion
3D Studio Max
Maya

Almost anything. Could you also give sugestions for powerful effects software?