What platform do you use with Nuendo, PC or MAC?
0 voters
I know that it’s a repeated ande repeated debate, but I’d like to know just what is the most used platform by professional Nuendo users. Now that Windows has become a much more stable OS, and that Apple’s new Mac Pro is a much more expensive computer, it would be interesting to analyze users preferences on this.
Thanks for answering!!!
Errr … both! 
I’ll take Windows over MacOS any day simply because I dislike Apple, it’s too expensive, and Windows based computers are generally easier to assemble, customize and maintain.
Computer specs in sig…
Platform agnostic here, mix of Windows and Apple.
I heartily dislike windows as an OS, but my love for Mac OS is getting less for every update.
Same feeling here.
Here as well. Also the fact that their hardware neglects the “middle”.
You can buy a very good high end and resonably good integrated machines, but nothing in between. A Ryzen based mac for 3k, that would be interesting for audio…
Apple will never sell the one thing some customers will want…an ATX motherboard with an apple bios/efi that you just plop In any case. Thats not the apple ecosystem and thats not product control / marketing control. Im kinda glad they don’t because thats a can of worms…once they do that , then out come all the negative Nancies saying why doesn’t the mother board have this or that and its too expensive and all that crap. I could possibly see a motherboard offering, later on, for the new Mac Pro , but most likely not.
Been building my own PCs forever. Windows 7 kept offline has been a great friend to me. Uber solid. Also have various Macs, but for professional DAW use I am locked into WIndows.
The ability to build and tailor the hardware and OS to a specific purpose with zero wasted CPU power is compelling for me. That said, I am a gearhead to the point of building my own engines for my hotrods so I’m likely in the minority.
Both here (but also for apps other than Nuendo and DAWs).
On the Windows side: Dell T7910 workstation (2x3.0 Ghz Xeons) running Windows 10 Pro for Workstations 1909, UA Apollo, RTX 2080 Ti, etc.
Personally, am finding that MacOS Catalina is full of bugs that need to be worked through, & in particular in relation to permissions and security in general.
All of the same apps run fine on Windows, while on MacOS I lost many due to various incompatibility issues. This includes iZotpe RX6, Waves v9, ProTools Ultimate 2019.6 etc. So, I continue to use Windows for those.
I guess old RX6 is highly unlikely to be updated for Catalina.
Isotope is not know for things like that.
It’s an interesting comparison because I just set up a Pro Tools HDX rig on a trash can with a Sonnet chassis with a combination of Burl B80 and Avid HD IO converters for different tonalities in December of last year. Here is how ridiculous the Apple situation has become. This was on a timeline for a client for whom I’m designing and building a full on Studio.
At the exact point I needed to put the system together it was impossible to buy a new computer from Apple Corporation that was certified to work with Pro Tools, the most common application used by professionals on Mac. The end.
I ended up up with a maxed out used trash can and things are working fine but for those of us not addicted to any specific company it is really difficult to understand how insane the maze of OSX revisions has become. And I would say for that reason alone, if I was starting from scratch I would go PC all the way. I can’t believe how much time my Apple ecosystem friends spend figuring out what is and isn’t compatible with whatever OSX flavor of the month Apple is releasing. Never mind the updates in between. For people like me not privy to the Mystique it certainly appears to be the polar opposite of a customer-oriented approach.
Okay that’s getting very close to ranting but wow what is the deal?
I will never go the Apple route for two reasons:
The constant OS changes and consequential incompatibilities would drive me mad.
The current price of new machines is frightening (over $40,000 for a top end Pro is just a bit too much for me, and probably for most sane people!).
I just ordered an X2-machine from XI Machines.
Doesn’t get any better than that.
Fredo
What a monster … Hmmm, what a price tag …
Where is the coffee tap and does it do laundry, too? 
You’ll surely have a lot of fun working with this. Congrats…
Cheers, ol’ chum…
Rainer ( on PC since day X )
One thing to note. If you are strictly in post-production and not concerned with real-time latency for performance for either recording vocals or playing, that should probably affect your decision.
At higher buffer settings, the current AMD processors are unbeatable in terms of horsepower. They are simply the most powerful processors currently available by a substantial margin with one caveat. Intel still has superior performance at extremely low latency such as 32 or 64 sample buffers. By 128 samples things are evening out and at 256 and above it’s no contest at all.
The fact that their pricing also undercuts Intel is icing on the cake. So a bit of deeper research would be advantageous before committing to either platform. There are operating system advantages and disadvantages to be sure, however, AMD processors are only available in a PC. The dominance by AMD appears to be long-term and Intel is struggling remain competitive which looks to be the case for sometime in the future.
To allay any suspicions of Fanboy talk, I’m currently on Intel CPUs and have no intention to change that until AMD resolves their cache implementation that constrains Ultra low-latency performance. For straight up, lowest latency music production, which is me, Intel still wins. But if you live in buffer sizes of 128 or above, it’s AMD by a mile in both absolute performance and cost to achieve it. Intel is simply not there at this point, which is relevant to this thread since there is only one OS option for AMD processors.
As a quick example. If you were to spend $13000.00 US on a new Mac Pro base model with the only upgrade being a 28 core CPU, you will be able to achieve audio performance of only 65-70% the CPU performance of the top of the line AMD 32 core in a PC you could have built for in the $5,000-6000 range. That seems pretty compelling to me.
Dang, looks like I shut down the whole thread.
Sorry, did not mean to.
I am on an older HP z820 workstation with dual hex 3.5GHz Xeons, and cannot complain about stability and performance