The Song Fight Bulletin Board

jb wrote:A PC is a hammer made of jigsaw puzzle pieces.

I'm assuming "PC"="Windows" in this discussion. One joy of PC is choice of OS. Even multiple OS's if you're really tricky with disk partitioning.

Really, Windows is a big hammer made out of little screwdrivers. Pretty good and kind of annoying when you're dealing with big nails, but great when you encounter tiny screws.

I'm no Mac wiz, but the lack of a (useful) command line and the odd disconnection of the windowing system from the actual drive file system gives me the willies. I admire the engineering, but I like to tinker too much. Never recorded on a Mac, though, so I can't really add anything to the discussion.

So why post? 'Cause I'm tired of being a Su-Su-Pseudo Noob.

Don't get the idea that Macs are perfect, though. They're still computers, and they still have their non-sensical conventions that you just have to learn and accept because that's the way they are. (Probably such things come from the fact that the computer is ultimately built by engineers and there isn't yet enough involvement from "normal" people.) It will be a bit confusing for a while, coming from a PC.

Also, the OS doesn't really crash anymore, but applications still crash sometimes. I've had my mail program crash, my web browser crash, iPhoto, etc. Recently I got Cubase SX 3 and it's crashed a bunch, for no apparent reason. I also somehow managed to lose my click track and wound up having to go into my "Library" to toss out my old preferences to get it back. This isn't something someone new to the Mac would know to do, necessarily.

So though I think they're way easier to use than PCs, they're not perfect by any means.

Hoblit wrote: However, there are still those who like to have as much understanding and control over their machine as possible. This would include self upgrades and the tinkering you speak of.

What are you talking about? With OSX, Macs are as tinker-friendly as you can get. and the more you learn about the subsystem (BSD, a unix variant), the more you learn about REAL computing -- not DOS crap. I just saw a thing on slashdot about how MIT nerds are getting powerbooks left and right. There's plenty of reasons to not get a Mac, but wanting to tinker isn't one of them.

Mostess wrote: One joy of PC is choice of OS. Even multiple OS's if you're really tricky with disk partitioning.

On the PC, you can install: Windows, and/or Linux. On the Mac you can install: Mac OSX, and/or Linux. Don't see a difference.

Mostess wrote: I'm no Mac wiz, but the lack of a (useful) command line...

The terminal is less useful than the DOS prompt? Are you being sarcastic? Seriously, I think you must be being sarcastic.

Mostess wrote:...and the odd disconnection of the windowing system from the actual drive file system gives me the willies. I admire the engineering, but I like to tinker too much. Never recorded on a Mac, though, so I can't really add anything to the discussion.

Disconnection? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Mostess wrote:

jb wrote:A PC is a hammer made of jigsaw puzzle pieces.

I'm assuming "PC"="Windows" in this discussion. One joy of PC is choice of OS. Even multiple OS's if you're really tricky with disk partitioning.

Really, Windows is a big hammer made out of little screwdrivers. Pretty good and kind of annoying when you're dealing with big nails, but great when you encounter tiny screws.

I'm no Mac wiz, but the lack of a (useful) command line and the odd disconnection of the windowing system from the actual drive file system gives me the willies. I admire the engineering, but I like to tinker too much. Never recorded on a Mac, though, so I can't really add anything to the discussion.

So why post? 'Cause I'm tired of being a Su-Su-Pseudo Noob.

To me, in the vernacular, PC = Windows, Mac = Mac OS, and "my machine" often = Linux or something else.

I make a definite distinction between those who want to get things done, and those who enjoy tinkering. Tinkerers often want to get things done, but don't mind getting sidetracked into the guts of the thing they're using to get things done. They enjoy fiddling with the computer. Me, I hate it. It's a necessary evil. When my Mom asks me for computer help, she has no idea how big a favor I'm doing her.

Unfortunately, in order to accomplish the things my brain comes up with, I have to tinker. I have to tinker on the sf server, i have to tinker with my computer, i have to tinker with my cello, i have to tinker with my guitar, i have to tinker with my microphones, i have to tinker with my patchbay, i have to tinker with my fucking CELL phone. Gah. It's a fact of life, I know, but there's nothing I appreciate more in the world than something that should "just work"-- and does.

I *do* understand the impulse to tinker, I just don't share it.

So with all that said, if you want to just get stuff done, *I* think you'll have better results with a Mac. Especially if you're doing the stuff it's designed to do well at an average level-- word processing, digital manipulation of media. iLife seems to work really well for many uses. If you wanna get all professional and stuff... then you're going to wind up tinkering, even on a Mac.

JB

I started using an iBook (belonging to the university) about 4 years ago, because I got tired of trying to find a laptop which could run Linux well (so I decided to instead try out MacOS since, hey, might as well use a laptop DESIGNED to run UNIX). It was just to be a complement to my (way higher-powered) Linux workstation (with an extremely customized user interface and so on).

About a year later I was using the iBook more.

When I had to give the iBook back to the university, I bought a used G4/450. Still way less powerful than the Linux machine, but it was actually a joy to use. Plus, it was built in 1999 and was still useful (it still is — my sister is using it now and she loves it, and before that she was using an even older G3/266 iMac and didn't even think she needed to upgrade).

Macs *come with* GarageBand, which is just plain amazing as far as "free" recording software goes. GB2 is particularly neat - it has a lot of features which even expensive audio recording stuff doesn't provide. If you need more capabilities (like track automation and MIDI export), Logic Express is only $300 (or $150 via the educational discount, which is possible to get even if you're not a university student), and Logic Pro is $1000 (or $500 educational) and totally blows everything else away, IMO. (One neat thing: in Logic Pro, you don't need dedicated hardware to improve your realtime performance - it lets you distribute the processing across multiple Macs. This is something Mac apps are going to see more and more of in the future, too, because of some really cool distributed-computing stuff that has been lurking in OSX for a while but which Apple have only begun exploring the possibilities of.)

Office? Even PC Magazine thinks the OSX version of Office is better than the PC version. Though I don't even have (or need) Office, as the software it came with is enough for my needs (AppleWorks for spreadsheet stuff, TextEdit for general-purpose word processing). Also, for programmers, XCode is way the hell better than Visual Studio, and is also about $1600 cheaper. (Visual Studio costs $1600.)

Safari kicks the pants off of IE. Firefox is a bit nicer (IMO) than the Windows version. (I have to use Firefox now and then for the odd site which doesn't support Safari, like Google Maps.)

My 12" Powerbook is a laptop but it also functions as a desktop. It's the only laptop on the market I know of which supports dual-head monitor spanning. Its expansion options are limited (USB2 and Firewire) but the only things I've needed to add on are available in USB2 or Firewire anyway (recording interfaces, hard drives, etc.). Also the latency on Apple's USB implementation is WAY lower than anything I've ever seen on the PC - very important for recording. (The Tascam US-428 I have - which is only USB1, by the way - has only about 7ms of latency, and that's after considering its 2ms buffer.)

Mostess wrote:'m no Mac wiz, but the lack of a (useful) command line and the odd disconnection of the windowing system from the actual drive file system gives me the willies. I admire the engineering, but I like to tinker too much. Never recorded on a Mac, though, so I can't really add anything to the discussion.

Funny. OSX's command line is BASH, which is a hell of a lot more flexible and useful than the DOS command line (and really, the DOS command line hasn't been useful in Windows for ages, while in OSX it's actually getting MORE useful as time goes on). In fact, BASH drives large parts of my website! (My content-management system, webcomic browser thing, and a few other odds and ends are all written in BASH.)

Also, OSX (and even classic MacOS) doesn't disconnect the drive system from the windowing system (aside from the desktop mapping to a special folder and also containing aliases to mounted drives). Windows, on the other hand, DOES (especially with "My Documents" which bugs the HELL out of me).

I bought a powerbook a couple years ago -- and I absolutely love it -- but when I recently replaced my music desktop, I went with Windows again.

It feels weird to spend all this money on something that isn't a Mac, after having "seen the light", but the programs I use just work better on the PC. Beyond the power/cost ratio -- which leans heavily in the PC's favor -- the music programs I use are more stable in Windows.

-craig

c hack wrote:The terminal is less useful than the DOS prompt? Are you being sarcastic? Seriously, I think you must be being sarcastic.

fluffy wrote: Funny. OSX's command line is BASH, which is a hell of a lot more flexible and useful than the DOS command line (and really, the DOS command line hasn't been useful in Windows for ages, while in OSX it's actually getting MORE useful as time goes on).

I definitely don't know what I'm talking about. I'm no Mac user, and I haven't seen anyone use a Mac command line since about 1988. So I assume it's not worth it. I happily stand corrected.

Though I should say that there are many free command-line programs for Win2k/XP, and all my old DOS-based statistical packages work very quickly and very well. I'm not doing any fancy network administration, but I love the Windows command-line---more than the point-and-click folder browsing, at any rate.

fluffy wrote:Also, OSX (and even classic MacOS) doesn't disconnect the drive system from the windowing system (aside from the desktop mapping to a special folder and also containing aliases to mounted drives). Windows, on the other hand, DOES (especially with "My Documents" which bugs the HELL out of me).

I think I feel about the Mac desktop (I use the Windows desktop as my home base) sort of the way you feel about "My Documents" in Windows (which I avoid). Ultimately, it's all pretty silly stuff: I like what I'm used to, and I stopped thinking of myself as a Mac person around 1993.

Well, if you're going to compare Mac in 1988 with Mac in 2005, you'd might as well also compare Windows in 1988 to Windows in 2005... (except that less has changed in Windows.)

fluffy wrote:Well,

Ha ha. But seriously, I haven't seen any Mac users use a command line since 1988. And I've watched them for the years since, including 2005. Obviously there are at least two right here who do, and who vouch for it's usefulness. Good to know that modern Macs are *NIX-like under their shiny shells. Sounds nicer than my jury-rigged Win2K machine.

HeuristicsInc wrote:I have personally had documents come up differently on my PC and my Mac at work.

To paraphrase the movie The Graduate I've got one word for you...

Fonts.

m$oftware is ass when it comes to informing the user about missing fonts, and if you're handing a document back and forth, cross platform, well...

The character sets between the two platforms remap, there's an infinite number of different versions of the typefaces you're (face it, it's true) gonna use (cough, Arial, Times New Roman), and when you're trying to match that crap cross-platform, you'd be better off herding cats with a rubber chicken.

/rant

Welcome to my hell. I is a professional wif far 2 much eXp3rience in dis shit.

Mostess, as far as I know, pre-OS X Macs didn't have any kind of native command line interface like DOS at all. But for the last ~4 years OS X has been out, and it isn't "*NIX-like", it -is- UNIX, a variant of BSD Unix if I recall correctly. OS X easily wipes the floor with Windows in terms of under-the-hood capabilities. It's a really stable environment but still has the old Mac ease-of-use. Everybody I know who is tech savvy and has a Mac uses the command line. My Mom and Dad don't, but they don't have to, so it doesn't matter.

I shudder to think of pre-OS X days. They were dark times, when a Mac could basically only do one thing at a time, more or less, and you had to worry about System Extension conflicts, and any little application crash would likely bring down your whole system, etc. Now I can do things like leave my mail client and Web browser open, copy a CD between my internal DVD-R to my FireWire CD-RW, work on a Java web application (running a J2EE server, a database, and a Java IDE), and work on a song in Cubase and Reason, among many other things, all at the same time.

Anyway, another thing to consider if you're budget minded is that it will be harder to find pirated Mac software, since not all the software out there runs on the Mac. I wound up buying Cubase because the only "free" version out there wasn't very usable.

In spite of the few limitations I've mentioned, I still they're better for the things I do (music, programming, photo editing, media library management, e-mail/web, etc.).

Pre-OSX did have the seeds of a commandline, with AppleScript. Definitely no replacement for a real shell, though. Also, the shell and AppleScript now integrate *beautifully* so you can get all sorts of neat stuff (like controlling GUI apps from the commandline, which is a lot more useful than you would think - like, sometimes I use <code>sleep 3600; osascript -e 'tell application "iTunes" to play'</code> as a quick-and-dirty alarm clock).

Seeds, fluffy? MPW was the best thing about those old macs.

HeuristicsInc wrote:

Southwest_Statistic wrote:

c hack wrote:PCs are better for this, mostly because things sometimes look different when you open up a PC powerpoint file on the mac and vice-versa. But Macs are more than capable.

<a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/applications/office/" target="_blank">Microsoft made the freaking software for Mac</a>. Same freakin programs. Identical in every freakin way. Freakin freaking freak freakin.

Sure they did, but they're not.
I have personally had documents come up differently on my PC and my Mac at work. If I cared more I could probably make a couple of screenshots. Powerpoint, I think, is the most common, but if you start futzing in Word you can make it happen too. Of course, my SGI at work won't run Word so I can't compare that one
-bill

But that's probably just a matter of what system fonts you've installed and the fact that most Microsoft Word users are dumb enough to just keep typing into the next page instead of using a page break. When somebody does that, I've often seen different Windows boxes interprit a word document differently.

Thank you everybody for your valuable advice. It seems to be confirming what I suspected. It appears that the only real downside to Macs is if I want to play lots of games - but I don't really play games. I used to be quite partial to Tetris. Do you think I could get Tetris on an Apple?

jb wrote:If you don't mind constantly futzing with things on your computer that have nothing to do with the work you're trying to accomplish, get a PC.

If you just want to work and don't want to bother with any of the mechanics of your computer, get a Mac.

It sounds like I want a Mac

j$ wrote: Buy the one that looks nicest

I think this may be the most valuable advice of all - and the answer is iMac.

I think I'm getting to the stage of my life where my time is far more valuable to me than my money. A computer that doesn't bugger me about, looks nice and doesn't have leads everywhere definately sounds like the go.


One final question for anyone who has used GarageBand:

I currently use a 1997 version of Cakewalk - and there is 1 feature of that that I like that I don't seem to be able to do on some other recording software Ive used (eg Audacity, Cubasis). That is - set a bpm rate for a song then use 'snap-to-grid' to easily cut-and-paste stuff around in tracks. Anyone know if I can do this with GarageBand? (I know this is probably a silly question, it's probably a standard feature in all software - I just don't know how to do it)

Southwest_Statistic wrote: most Microsoft Word users are dumb enough to just keep typing into the next page instead of using a page break. When somebody does that, I've often seen different Windows boxes interprit a word document differently.

Now we are getting somewhere. Dumb enough to keep typing, huh?

I am entering into this discussion at this late date because I see that someone has finally made a comment that deals with a fundamental difference between macs and windows machines, and to a large extent, the people who use them.

Historically, the PC has dealt with data first, formatting last. This is due in large part to its text-based heritage. Typing a document and formatting it were two different operations, executed sequentially rather than simultaneously. This freed the PC user up from dealing with issues of page size, margins, fonts, etc., while typing. In the view of your old-skool PC user, of which it is no secret I am one, this frees the person up from dealing with irrelevent technical issues in the middle of the creative act, which might be writing a letter, an article, a song lyric, etc. These were done after the fact, if the document needed to be printed. The PC users sees the data and the page as two completely separate entities.

The mac, and the users that came with it, have always seen it the other way around. Whenever you create a document, you are typing on some specific sized page, using a specific font at a specific size, with specific margins, and yes, page breaks in specific places. While one could argue that the user is free to ignore these, because they can always be changed after the fact, there is no question that it creates a mindset that one is creating a document rather than entering data.

Several years ago, I had a small handheld PC, about the size of a VCR tape (some of you may know what that is). A friend of mine wanted to see how ergonomic the keyboard was, so he asked me if I could bring up a word processor so he could try typin on it. When I handed it to him, the first thing he said was "how do you pick a font?". I said "oh, you're a mac user, you won't like it anyway." He said "how did you know?". By now, I hope you know how I knew.

Even though the modern PC and mac are much closer together in look and feel, those of who grew up with one or the other still see them from this perspective, and can still "feel" the difference.

Back to the page breaks. When do you put them in? I prefer to let the software do the work. I mean, if I have filled a page, I should be able to keep right on typing and go on to the next page. And if the document comes up with different page breaks on one machine from another, well, that's just the software doing its job. Do I want to go back and take them out when I cut a paragraph from one part of the document to another? Not really.

Anyway, I have a lot more to say on this issue, but I will stop here. Perhaps I should write a book.

Mostess wrote:I haven't seen any Mac users use a command line since 1988. And I've watched them for the years since, including 2005. Obviously there are at least two right here who do, and who vouch for its usefulness. Good to know that modern Macs are *NIX-like under their shiny shells. Sounds nicer than my jury-rigged Win2K machine.

I also grew up thinking Macs were neutered of a command line. I just never saw anyone use it, and in my naivety I thought "Ha ha, stupid Macs. If having two mouse buttons was too confusing, no wonder they don't have a command line". That was probably around 1998 (if I ever saw a Mac in 1988 I don't remember it, because I would have been 4).

A year ago a friend and I wandered into Future Shop to do some serious windows shopping when we stumbled upon a lone PowerBook (there are very few Macs around here). Just for kicks I started clicking its mono-mouse around and, to my surprise, opened a terminal. Out of curiosity I tried 'Banner': it worked. Then 'Vim': worked again. Then 'Emacs': sweet Jesus it worked. I reeled. What the hell!? Had I been so blinded by my prejudices that I had grown up hating a superior system?

A year later here I am, sitting at work, realizing that the answer is a resounding 'yes'. I'm trying to cobble together a windows batch script to parse some statistics, and I would kill for a BASH command line right about now.

Spud wrote:Anyway, I have a lot more to say on this issue, but I will stop here. Perhaps I should write a book.

Write it using LaTeX and you will be my friend. Formatting is the mind-killer. JB's comments are well-taken about system set-up, but your comments about content resonate with me---just type, then make it look nice.

Mostess,

I wrote a 540 page book on that very same handheld, using PC-Write, a DOS text-based editor. Funny how much it reminds me of today's html, because you had control codes (similar to WordStar) that you put in for bold, italic, headings, and whatnot.

SPUD

Spud wrote: Back to the page breaks. When do you put them in? I prefer to let the software do the work. I mean, if I have filled a page, I should be able to keep right on typing and go on to the next page. And if the document comes up with different page breaks on one machine from another, well, that's just the software doing its job. Do I want to go back and take them out when I cut a paragraph from one part of the document to another? Not really.

This starts getting really surreal somewhere about the third or fourth word. What the heck are you talking about? I know of no commercial PC software that required page breaks be used as you're describing in this little memo. Have I been missing out on something here? Perhaps my greenbar impact printer is too loud.

Many of us were accustomed to just getting down and typing away. I edited a classical guitar magazine (Guitar Review) in the early 80s and when my boss gave the go-ahead to bring some production activities in-house, started typesetting in 1984 [edit - it was 86. I started there in 84] on an IBM. I was inserting code by hand into mono spaced text on a green screen. Ain't that nice? It's actually a pain in the frickin ass to read that crap on screen. But then suddenly here came proportionally spaced fonts. You know, where letters are designed to actually compliment each other to better the reading experience. This is an art that took hundreds, actually thousands of years to evolve. Combined with leading and various other techniques this creates a far better experience than reverse contrast Courier.

I could imagine your friend sitting at a machine and only wanting what should be provided: a readable font on a display that at least tried to represent a tool for writing. Not a machine. When you sit at a new computer you set things up and then you get down to work. Including choosing a font that doesn't look like an 80s ATM. I see no reason to set margins and blah blah blah. But there are, of course, anal folks in all camps. And I totally get just using whatever's there. I'm pretty old school myself.

Now, about this page break fantasy scene. I never heard of anything so rediculous! Of course you just keep typing. Since the first Mac OS people have been just typing along. Then someone invented Postscript (for the Mac) and Postscript fonts (for the Mac) and now Postscript is embedded in the Mac OS (in the form of PDF) native. True Type, while getting better, still has problems at the rip. Most all high-end publishing demands Postscript fonts, regardless of platform.

Similarly I had to buy all sorts of things to get sound to work on my IBM. Then to manage the sound. You had to train it to do this stuff. I liked graphics and audio. It's been my life for 20 years. Macs were designed from the ground up with graphics and audio in mind. Out of the box. The people who design these things...they're the kind of people I want designing my tools. They breath it. Everything they do is done with this stuff in mind. Computers are stupid, dumb bricks that need to be told what to do. Macs included. But some bricks tend to be dragged kicking and screaming into my world. Others stack gracefully into monuments and sculpture (hahahaha that line cracks me up).

Typical "back office" business is about crunching numbers and entering forms. I know this all too well and business demands cheap solutions that are designed around the applications in use. Not pretty graphics and music. And this is a fine thing.

Andre Segovia never recognized the electric guitar as a musical instrument. He disowned his prized student John Williams for picking one up and recording with it. Segovia was a philistine who had so little interest in doing anything any other way than the way he did it, that he wouldn't except others doing it any other way either. Regardless of how incredible it might be. He choose to close doors to innovation, creativity and growth.

I loved Wordstar, by the way. Perhaps that means something.

I think (but could be wrong) the page break deal/usage/implication here is for consistent appearance between computers & platforms, IFF such a thing is desired by the disseminator of the document. I don't think home-person is saying that we all must manually tag/code in page breaks in documents, but more that using them helps preserve a pseudo-uniform appearance of the document in all its potential iterations.

*cough*acrobat*cough*

As for text, BBedit & 9 pt monaco is my drug of choice.

I was just responding to what the guy said, Roymond. He accused us PC users of being too dumb to insert page breaks into our documents.

I agree with most of what you say, except that I am MUCH more forgiving of what appears on the screen. If I can read it, that's good enough for me at input time. It doesn't have to be pretty. I am only looking at it to make sure that what I am typing is in fact going into the computer.

80's ATMs were much better than today's by the way. You had a simple menu of choices, with simple yes and no answers. My Washington Mutual cartoon interface now uses "No Thanks" and "Sure". I know that it is trying to be more human, but it is not. It is a fucking machine, and I want it to act like one. I have nothing against machines. In this particular case, I am concerned that they might be causing confusion among users for whom english is not their first language. Sometimes this "pretty" stuff can go too far.