Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sell the pc....get a MAC ......problem solved. Seriously this is what u need to do.
That antagonism has already been discouraged by the Serato admins themselves. The only thing that matters is if my machine meets or exceeds the stated Itch specifications and optimizations, which it does.
Until someone at Numark or Serato officially issues an incompability statement for Windows and PCs, the MAC vs. PC war disguised as advice is useless.
int.na.tl
just curious Papa Midnight......which operating system runs itch best ? windows 7 or hachintosh (mac operating system installed on a windows pc)
Well, that depends on so many different environmental variables, both hardware and software based, that I couldn't give you a straight "yes" or "no" answer on that if I tried.
In example: In my personal experience, my Hackintosh has run Itch better than a general usage Windows 7 partition, however, you have to factor that my Hackintosh is a clean install that I do
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT DJ ON. Hell, my hackintosh can't even write my music partition or create crates (NTFS partition). I do all that under Windows XP... which also performs just fine - if not equally to Mac OS X (minus the gui acceleration and slightly higher (5-10%) cpu usage). Windows 7, when in the same environment (nothing else running) works just as fine. I put ITCH on my general usage partition for Windows 7 and I'm sure it wouldn't work so well. Granted STEAM, Xfire, and the other 98+ processes which tend to run at any given time is practically guaranteed to cause issues. However, ITCH runs just fine on my backup laptop which is running Windows 7 in a clean environment and has a 2.0GHz C2D overclocked to 2.2GHz (to meet ITCH requirements). In both cases, Windows 7 is 64-bit. Since we're in the Windows 7 Family, just for kicks (and this experience is documented on this forum with screenshots to prove it), I've installed ITCH on Windows Server 2008 R2 (64-bit is the only option available for R2) on the same laptop. Mind you, 2008 R2 is essentially the same as Windows 7, minus a gui change to the shell and a few dropped processes. No problems. Period.
So to be clear, I'm sure if I loaded the hell out of my Mac OSX partition, it would run like crap. Mind you, building my Hackintosh was no game. For that matter, building ANY Hackintosh is no easy feat and not something you can just plop a disk in the drive and walk away from (i.e.: Windows and Linux). Hell, I practically had to piece together my GPU driver (which was the cause of about 8 or so of the reformats and reinstalls out of 10+ it took) as no Macbook Pro uses a GTX 260M, the keyboard driver. display driver (for the 1366x768 display itself), and I still don't have HDMI/VGA output. I can't even connect a cable to those ports without risking a failed boot or a complete system freeze requiring a hard shutdown if plugged in after booting. I learned my lesson already, as well, about the detect display button. Power Management? Personally disabled it via command line as it caused more issues than it was worth (especially with the system sleeping if the lid was closed - something I've always hated by ALL notebooks, regardless of OS). I'll never have Wireless on the Hackintosh as Apple has never used Intel wireless chipsets. If I'm not mistaken, they've always used Atheros. That puts my wireless capabilities out of commission when using Mac OS X. Which, then also introduces another environmental variable: Disable Wireless while using Serato ITCH? As far as Mac OS X is concerned, there is NO wireless. That point is moot. But there is wireless capabilities in all iterations of Windows installed on my machine, therefore a fair comparison cannot be made. Not everyone can just go out and build a Hackintosh either. It's time consuming work that requires very intimate knowledge of the hardware you're working with from my experiences and those of others I've personally known to do the same thing.
Now, the above was just an example based on my experiences with my hardware. It should also be noted that both my main machine and my backup machine retailed with an MSRP of $1399 and $1299 respectively - the former of which I personally upgraded the CPU myself with one featuring an 800MHz higher clock rate so tack on another $380 right there + $20 for the Artic Silver Compound thermal grease + two new twin 640GB HDD's. These are by no means cheap $300 Toshiba's and HP/Compaq's which, although they may appear to meet system requirements on paper specs (such as a Core i3 clocked at 2.4GHz and 4GB of RAM), use substandard hardware, especially at the Southbridge where the USB host bus, which is also probably of substandard quality, is routed through to get to the Northbridge (which is also likely of substandard quality) where the CPU and RAM are routed through...
...and then there's AMD machines running Windows 7.
For the record, the "Windows PC" argument is a bit of a misnomer for 2 reasons: One, it determines that PC only applies to Windows where-as PC is an acronym for "Personal Computer" - which is what a Mac is, contrary to what Apple would seem to want people to believe; and Second, it determines that the hardware is designed for Windows software only when it is not. The very existence of Hackintosh's negate this from jump. Furthermore, since the PowerPC was cut from production and Apple switched to Intel processors, Mac's have shared the exact same hardware as so-called PC's. The only difference (as discussed before with the divide between a notebook such as mine and a $300 Acer) is the considerably lesser degree of hardware fragmentation that the Apple platform possesses. Generally, there's a series of Macbooks and those all share the exact same hardware with very few differences between each stepping model. With general other PC manufacturers, the hardware fragmentation is VAST, some of higher quality and many of lower quality - even within companies. Since I've already picked on HP/Compaq, Toshiba, and Acer, I'll point out ASUS who can build excellent, powerful monsters such as the (RO)G-Series, NX90 Series, and Ferrari series of notebooks (
www.newegg.com) or even the decently spec'd mid-range N (
www.newegg.com) and K (
www.newegg.com) series... and on the same token, put out the K52F-BIN6 (
www.bestbuy.com).
To that point, you've gotta realize that with few exceptions, most persons on PC's operating the Windows OS and attempting to use Serato ITCH are attempting to do on PC's they purchased for less than $600 MSRP in most circumstances; and, as is commonly said, you get what you pay for. Some persons may come out with decent machines while some may come out with machines which harbor usb bus issues. You'll notice that its rare you hear from people on this forum with PCs running Windows that have machines which retail with MSRPs of $999 or greater. Meanwhile, the cheapest MacBook
starts at $999.99 (
store.apple.com) and, with an Intel Core 2 Duo at 2.4GHz and 2GB of DDR3 RAM + an NVIDIA 320M, is more than perfectly capable of running ITCH at the hardware level. I'm sure if you bootcamped Windows XP onto it, it'd still run ITCH like a champ. The cheapest MacBook Pro
starts at $1199 (
store.apple.com) - and based on specifications, is also perfectly capable of running ITCH. I'm sure if persons who got Windows 7 equipped notebooks shopped for similarly priced machines (which generally have vastly superior spec's to their mirror-priced Apple-manufactured counterparts -
www.newegg.com) in that price range, the divide would fall immensely. Of course, not everyone can afford that, especially for entry cost, which is half the reason why Windows has been so vastly successful in terms of sales - especially of lower cost machines - than Apple has.
So again, I can't give you a straight answer on that because
it's just not possible. Hence why the whole Mac vs PC is nothing more than a baseless distraction without merit.
