iMac vs Macbook Pro - time to decide

[emulatorloo]

Seeing the Macbook (not Pro) and iMac both run a 2.16Ghz processor, why don't I just upgrade a Macbook's RAM, and get an external HDD if I end up running into disk speed trouble?

jimbyjoe -- if you dig thru this site you can probably extrapolate macbook vs macbook pro performance.

http://www.barefeats.com/

A lot of macbook vs macbook pro to me comes down to the user experience -- macbook pro keyboard feels better to type on, better over all fit and finish (sleeker than macbook). It is a lot like say, VW Bug vs VW Passat -- both will get you there, one is more comfortable for long rides.

==

[jimbyjoe]

ok cool thanks all of you! Emu yes I did read that barefeats performance thing, thanks.
I'll do a test on the Macbook this weekend and that will probably determine things.
take care

[jimbyjoe]

Seeing the Macbook (not Pro) and iMac both run a 2.16Ghz processor, why don't I just upgrade a Macbook's RAM, and get an external HDD if I end up running into disk speed trouble?

jimbyjoe -- if you dig thru this site you can probably extrapolate macbook vs macbook pro performance.

http://www.barefeats.com/

==

OK, i did a bit of testing on my wife's Macbook (not Pro) tonight (2.16Ghz, 1Gb Ram, stock everything). The DP project had:
- at least 14 full-time mono tracks (with about 6 others)
- at least 12 stereo aux groups (6 Master groups + 6 FX busses)
- each mono voice and aux had an average of 2 effects or processes on it. I made sure I was liberal with my use of delay and long reverbs.
- 4 inserts on the master
- plus 4 tracks with automation

I then recorded a guitar split into 4 mono tracks (through a very bodgy jod with some pedals and some mics), whilst playing all this back. There was no sign of strain or anything. I did some activity monitor screen grabs. When the maximum number of tracks were playing back and the 4 mono tracks were recording, this is what Activity Monitor said:
CPU
User: 45%, System 17%, Nice 0%, Idle 38%.
System Memory
Wired: 209; Active:176; Inactive: 369, Free:268 (all MB)
Disk Usage
Reads in: 71292; out:42927; Reads in/sec:10; Writes out/sec: 2
Data read: 3.73GB, Data written: 1.22GB; Data Read/sec:1.85MB, Data Written/sec: 256KB

Compared to when I was just playing everything back and had several other applications open, the CPU usage was at 45%, 12%, 0% and 45%, it doesn't seem so bad all the recording and playback (no others apps).

I don't have too many projects with that many tracks and plugins, though the reason to buy a Macbook Pro - "i might need all that performance one day...."

k

[Mr. Quimper]

Just throwing my 2-cents in here, I will note that, for what it's worth, I currently am running a first-gen Intel iMac (got it the day they were announced), and I have not had a single...not one...issue with it whatsoever.

My previous Mac was a Powerbook and I had to send it in 5 times. Luckily, I not only had Applecare, but I got the thing insured for $30/year: literally saved me THOUSANDS in repair costs.

I don't know if that experience is mirrored anywhere else, but I have to suggest that if you go the Macbook route, definitely get Applecare. I have heard that the portables are more prone to "issues".

My iMac still works like a dream, and it's been well over a year and a half - you'll get much more performance for the dollar compared to a true portable.

That said, it works as my portable anyway, since it's only 17" and I got an http://www.ilugger.com/ iLugger travel bag for it, it's a carryon for any airline.

Needless to say, my vote's for the iMac...you can max the ram out to 4GB now and they all come standard w/ 7200RPM drives.

[jimbyjoe]

hi mate
thanks for your input.

the good news is i've ordered my MBP and should here in about 1 week!!!
i've asked more people about the applecare and they said (including the retailer) you can get it anytime during the standard warranty period. so i could buy it in 11 months time. we'll see how we go.

k

[Mr. Quimper]

It's funny, though, go back 6 years or so and I think I'd have had myself committed for saying such a thing.

The iMacs have really come into their own, design-wise and performance-wise. They really are more a "prosumer" product beyond their previous consumer-only stigma.

[Mr. Quimper]

hi mate
thanks for your input.

the good news is i've ordered my MBP and should here in about 1 week!!!

Hey, that's great. Good luck! I'm sure you're have fun with it. Despite my comments, they're still the best portables on Earth.

[theprez]

I too am considering these choices for upgrade and have been looking for a posted answer to one of my concerns (but haven't yet found one). Maybe someone here can tell me.
Way back when I bought my G4 Powerbook, there was an issue regarding using the FW400 port for Audio Interface while using FW 800 for a recording drive. I don't remember the specific problem, but I was told I could not run with the Audio device and the recording device both connected to the Powerbook (possibly something to do with the two ports sharing some bus architecture). I had to buy a "card to FW" adapter and run my 828 through it. A couple of years later I wrote to Focusrite to ask if I would have any similar issues if I connected a "Liquid Mix" to either the original Powerbook FW400 port or through the same Card adapter I had the 828 on, they wrote back and said I very well might have "problems" if I did either.
Obviously, I am now concerned because the Imac has only the same single FW400 and 800 ports and no card slots that I can see.
So my question is: Does anyone know if I can connect my 828 to the 400 port and my Lacie drives to the 800 port of a new Imac without experiencing "issues" ? Sorry about the vagueness, but no one ever explained to me exactly what the original problem was, only that I'd better buy a card adapter.
Thanks if anyone can cast some light here for me.
Steve Nathan

[Dwetmaster]

Like some other said, the ONLY difference is on the portability. I've been using my MBP with for year now and I never had any major issue. I've been using the stock 5400RPM with it all this time. I am upgrading the HD now for a lack of space so I decided to go with the new Hitachi travelstar 7200 200GB
The MBP can now go to 2.4 GHz and 4GB RAM so that's enough headrooom for quite a bit.

To Me the real question would be between a MBP or or a real desktop for upgradablility consideration. Both the MBP and the IMac are not.

[bulghur]

Does anyone have experience with a Mac Book Pro and recording/mixdown at 24/96? I am concerned with FW through-put given that I would have to drive an 896 (old), 828MKII, an high quality dual AD/DC via S/DIF (my main i/o) via the 828 and an the FW drive. I found that the FW400s were overtaxed and glitchy (I wordclock from a master device to both units). I mix out of the box.

I am not too concerned with plug-ins -- I don't use a lot EQ or compression plug-ins but do use delays and Altiverb in 24/96.

I definitely would like to avoid a Mac Pro and favour the MacBook Pro for portability but I can't seem to get good metrics on performance.

JimbyJoe seemed to do an interesting analysis on performance but I didn't see any info on rate and format.

Cheers, Bulghur

[jowtown]

I'll add my $.02 ......FWIW

I have owned a g5 iMac for three years. I have found it to be suffiecient for my needs. I have what one would refer to as the original "consumer version" . I can run 24 + tracks of audio and plenty of plugs, stream samples etc. I have it maxed out with the 2 gig RAM.

However, the single firewire bus is a drag. Yes it has two FW PORTS - but it is a single BUS. I do not have them daisy chained, but in the end they are poulling off of that single bus. Other than lack of portability - that is a BIG drawback - if ...and this is the if ...you are going to engage in demanding PRO audio production.

Regardless that the iMac's have really come a long, long way - and performance is probably a toss up - the lack of being able to expand via an express card to provider that critical second FW or eSATA bus is a major drawback. Be aware of that one ....

[rockitcity]

I did some research on the Apple discussions site about the new imac Firewire ports. According to some users, the FW 400 and 800 ports do operate independently on the new imac. Here's the link: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jsp ... &tstart=30

Also, some users have reported getting full speed from two devices when daisy-chained off the FW 800 bus of Powerbooks. Haven't tried this, but I have several FW 800 drives that also have FW400 ports, so I am anxious to see if this will actually work. I'm hoping to re-wire my setup this week to see if I can get my Traveler interface to work daisy-chained off a FW 800 drive. Will post if successful.

Bob

[jimbyjoe]

JimbyJoe seemed to do an interesting analysis on performance but I didn't see any info on rate and format.

Cheers, Bulghur

Standard "stuck in DP3 era" - 16 bit, 44.1khz. i think i'll always be there
j

[jimbyjoe]

Like some other said, the ONLY difference is on the portability. I've been using my MBP with for year now and I never had any major issue. I've been using the stock 5400RPM with it all this time. I am upgrading the HD now for a lack of space so I decided to go with the new Hitachi travelstar 7200 200GB
The MBP can now go to 2.4 GHz and 4GB RAM so that's enough headrooom for quite a bit.

Don't tell me now that you're using the stock drive and got no problems!!!
just joking; just that i'm geting mine with a 7200rpm drive - only because i thought i'd better get what i want while i can, otherwise i might regret it.
actually thanks for starting up this one because i'm sure i will need to be getting an external HDD for something soon. then it will be, "Yes honey I kNOW i said i didn't need anything else....but....it's like when you run out of room for all your scrapbooking things...."
k

[Threlly]

If I had a penny for every time the old 7200 vs 5400 drive thing was trotted out, I'd be a rich man.
The drives used in modern Macs are SATA drives, the difference in throughput between a 5400 and 7200 is virtually nil, seek times yes, overall performance, no.
Early IDE drives did see a big difference in performance, later ones like SATA, not so much.
Don't get fooled by this old wives tale.
I regularly run 30 audio tracks plus on a MAC MINI !! with 2gb of ram.
HD performance indicator ticks along at approx 60%.