Should you opt for a standard computer-based system or go for a
“solution-in-a-box?”

Speed, as they say, is everything. (Others, particularly in real estate, may insist that “location” is everything, but that applies to DAWs only when we can’t figure out where the hell we saved that #@*&! WAV file.)

So it’s speed that counts. And, as anybody who has looked at the internal workings of a personal computer knows, the more focused the application, the faster it will run.

Go this way… (click on image for full size)

To confirm this, try turning off all your extensions and control panels on your Mac-based system, or boot a brand-new Windows-complaint PC, to see how quickly the stripped-down systems runs while handling, for example, open/save routines, or file transfers.

Simple Is Faster…All Else Equal

The reason is simple to understand: by optimizing the system’s operating software to take full advantage of the microprocessor selected by the workstation’s manufacturer, the designer can leave out a number of unneeded, slow-poke routines. For example, if a DAW manufacturer offers a product that runs on an Apple Macintosh-compliant platform, then each and every function has to be run through the Mac's Operating System (or OS). In other words, to access a byte of data on a hard drive, the DAW software needs to perform a call to the OS, which in turn goes off to the drive, looks up the address, returns the material to an accumulator or register, and report the result back to the master program. All of which takes time. And if you want to draw a waveform on the graphics screen, the software needs to work through a series of pre-written routines provided by the Mac OS, rather than directly address individual screen elements. More slowdowns.

Given the inevitable speed reduction involved in this approach, why would anybody elect to use off-the-shelf PCs, instead of employing their own proprietary approaches using high-speed, low-level programming languages? In essence it is one of expediency and economy. If a particular vendor can develop a plain-vanilla personal computer that contains a fast motherboard, plenty of RAM, video drivers, disk interfaces and the rest for several hundred dollars – and anybody who has shopped recently for a Windows-compatible PC will soon realize that these numbers are pretty realistic – workstation developers do not need to design, develop and support a proprietary system that could run then their custom-developed software. (Well, actually just their own code written in assembler for the microprocessor of choice, but you get the basic idea.)

…or go this way?

By using all of the pre-written software routines that come with an off-the-shelf PC, the DAW manufacturer can concentrate on the real nuts and bolts of the recording/editing/mixing system, safe in the knowledge that the BIOS routines and higher-level screen plus disk-access routines will link nicely to their data-manipulation routines, normally written in a object-oriented language, such as C/ C++ or similar, which is well understood and supported by a large number of in-house and freelance code writers.

To further streamline development, the DAW development team can take advantage of a large number of pre-configured routines for the selected operating systems.

Upgrade in a Kit

When the time comes for an upgrade, these core routines can simply be linked to the framework provided by the newer version of Windows, for example, or an updated Mac OS optimized for a new high-tech processor. In reality, Microsoft and Apple, plus others, publish a series of Software Developer Kits, or SDKs, that contain list of calls to higher level, pre-optimized disk-access and display routines. It’s all easier if and when you know how.

On the other hand, a DAW configured on custom-developed hardware and running a proprietary operating system, while inherently faster, will not enjoy such a quick and easy upgrade path. Despite the fact that some systems can be revitalized with a simple EPROM swap, while others may feature flash EEPROMS than can be modified in situ from a floppy or similar media, the basic workstation operations are pretty much locked into the basic unit. This is not a bad thing, of course, if you are okay with the features and functions offered by the workstation, but not so desirable if a new strange media comes along, or, for example, you look jealously at the types of performance leaps being offered by today’s PowerPC G3/4 and Pentium II/IV-based workstations.