New Quad Core iMac released (20 October 2009)

[mhschmieder]

I have, for the most part, been off the 'net the past week, but finally decided to try to catch up tonight, now that my product is about to ship.

The big shocker is that Apple is not shipping any more 27" iMacs until the display problem is solved.

Well, good for them for taking responsibility even at the expense of losing Christmas sales. I am so glad now that I didn't pre-pay to order them when they were out of stock already most places at end of November.

[mhschmieder]

I never found official confirmation that the delay in shipping 27" iMacs is quality control oriented vs. supply and demand. COunt that as a rumour for now.

I also haven't found anything definitive on why hyper-threading should be avoided and why the i5 might be faster than the i7 for many apps. Only a couple of people have said this so I suspect they are wrong. The added bang of the i7 over the i5 goes way beyond the minimal cost differential.

The extra $300 for the ATI Radeon version of the 21.5" iMac is a bit annoying but seems worth it, after evaluating different tests and deciding on the ones that would probably be most relevant to DP. It's really annoying that they don't at least include Logic in any of the benchmarks.

At any rate, after very thorough comparison of specs last night, I concluded the MBP will probably be updated next month to more exactly match the new iMac specs, which they are already close to in most respects and slightly exceed in a few critical areas (mostly the 17" MBP though, as it's the only one with ExpressCard).

I am expecting them to switch to 16:9 and maybe get slightly longer without getting deeper, for hopefully less dense pixel-packing (it looks like the MBP 17" is the densest, then the 27" iMac, with the 21.5" iMac being the most comfortable for long sessions but the 27" being acceptable).

Hopefully 16 GB RAM expandability, and a few other pips that would actually make the MBP 17" be a good buy compared to the 27" iMac -- as long as they can get either the i5 or i7 chip (or a variant thereof for laptop use), to work in that enclosure without putting out too much heat. Maybe ATI Radeom graphics as well, but I bet that's a challenge in the laptop enclosure.

It is still the case that my needs are so desperate at this point that I would spring for the i7 iMac in a flash, were it in stock anywhere. But as more weeks go by, there is more likelihood I will instead spring for a MacPro (once updated) or a 17" MBP if it has the right specs to make it good value (that would then become my on-location session recorder).

[newrigel]

I never found official confirmation that the delay in shipping 27" iMacs is quality control oriented vs. supply and demand. COunt that as a rumour for now.

I also haven't found anything definitive on why hyper-threading should be avoided and why the i5 might be faster than the i7 for many apps. Only a couple of people have said this so I suspect they are wrong. The added bang of the i7 over the i5 goes way beyond the minimal cost differential.

The extra $300 for the ATI Radeon version of the 21.5" iMac is a bit annoying but seems worth it, after evaluating different tests and deciding on the ones that would probably be most relevant to DP. It's really annoying that they don't at least include Logic in any of the benchmarks.

At any rate, after very thorough comparison of specs last night, I concluded the MBP will probably be updated next month to more exactly match the new iMac specs, which they are already close to in most respects and slightly exceed in a few critical areas (mostly the 17" MBP though, as it's the only one with ExpressCard).

I am expecting them to switch to 16:9 and maybe get slightly longer without getting deeper, for hopefully less dense pixel-packing (it looks like the MBP 17" is the densest, then the 27" iMac, with the 21.5" iMac being the most comfortable for long sessions but the 27" being acceptable).

Hopefully 16 GB RAM expandability, and a few other pips that would actually make the MBP 17" be a good buy compared to the 27" iMac -- as long as they can get either the i5 or i7 chip (or a variant thereof for laptop use), to work in that enclosure without putting out too much heat. Maybe ATI Radeom graphics as well, but I bet that's a challenge in the laptop enclosure.

It is still the case that my needs are so desperate at this point that I would spring for the i7 iMac in a flash, were it in stock anywhere. But as more weeks go by, there is more likelihood I will instead spring for a MacPro (once updated) or a 17" MBP if it has the right specs to make it good value (that would then become my on-location session recorder).

FWIW... DP will work excellent on the new iMacs. You stepping up from a G4 is going to be like getting blasted by a water cannon @ a hemp protest he he...
I'm really surprised @ why you just don't wait for the 6 core Mac Pro though? You have so much more to gain for the same money really and you can put some DSP cards in there to give it a bit of personality! There is no EQ like a UAD Neve 1073... NOTHING! But, I'm just glad your going to be happy and you'll soon find your mixes taking on a whole new dimension with the added power that's for sure. Have fun and happy holidays!!

[mhschmieder]

There's a very simple answer: I do not own, I rent, and the landlord won't allow me to do much with the space, so all of my tracking is done on-location. Individual overdubs are done at the apartment, but it's easier to control a single sound source with amateur and semi-pro means, than a full drum set, band, or ensemble during initial multi-tracking.

A MacPro, therefore, either has to be accompanied by a separate purchase of a Mac Mini, MacBook Pro, or iMac, or the ancient iMac has to continue doing that duty (not terribly realistic beyond the next 12 months or so).

The Mac Mini requires heavy customization to be a serious contendor, and quickly loses its appeal as a result -- considering there's more bang-for-buck with MBP and iMac and also somewhat simpler portability.

It would be a done deal if the iMacs were available, but they haven't really been available at all yet except for a brief window of opportunity right before Thanksgiving.

This is why there are some scalpers who got ahold of the early run of i7's and are charging $2800 for the base model! AFAIK this is unheard of.

I consider the i7 to be such bang for buck, that I would have no regrets even if I do hit the latency wall due to external drives. The MBP has slightly more appeal due to eSATA, but I'm not convinced the differential is that extreme other than the fact that different drives and the audio I/O would be using different busses since I don't think eSATA collapses down to FW and/or URB at a significant part of the MBP architecture.

The only real appeal of a Mini for me at this point is whether it can serve as a stop-gap until new Mac Pro's are released, then become a VE PRO farm machine afterwards (and hopefully also a remote recording computer, with only DP installed but no other VI's and plug-ins other than what VE PRO will host -- but I'm still not sure if this is possible, due to the requirements for how one sets up a VE PRO slave computer).

[newrigel]

There's a very simple answer: I do not own, I rent, and the landlord won't allow me to do much with the space, so all of my tracking is done on-location. Individual overdubs are done at the apartment, but it's easier to control a single sound source with amateur and semi-pro means, than a full drum set, band, or ensemble during initial multi-tracking.

A MacPro, therefore, either has to be accompanied by a separate purchase of a Mac Mini, MacBook Pro, or iMac, or the ancient iMac has to continue doing that duty (not terribly realistic beyond the next 12 months or so).

The Mac Mini requires heavy customization to be a serious contendor, and quickly loses its appeal as a result -- considering there's more bang-for-buck with MBP and iMac and also somewhat simpler portability.

It would be a done deal if the iMacs were available, but they haven't really been available at all yet except for a brief window of opportunity right before Thanksgiving.

This is why there are some scalpers who got ahold of the early run of i7's and are charging $2800 for the base model! AFAIK this is unheard of.

I consider the i7 to be such bang for buck, that I would have no regrets even if I do hit the latency wall due to external drives. The MBP has slightly more appeal due to eSATA, but I'm not convinced the differential is that extreme other than the fact that different drives and the audio I/O would be using different busses since I don't think eSATA collapses down to FW and/or URB at a significant part of the MBP architecture.

The only real appeal of a Mini for me at this point is whether it can serve as a stop-gap until new Mac Pro's are released, then become a VE PRO farm machine afterwards (and hopefully also a remote recording computer, with only DP installed but no other VI's and plug-ins other than what VE PRO will host -- but I'm still not sure if this is possible, due to the requirements for how one sets up a VE PRO slave computer).

Well... in that case, go with the iMac if you do remote stuff. They have some cool cases for them too. Just be careful... that's a monster there to be lugging around.
But I'd look here from time to time: http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/s ... TM3NTA4Mzk
And those SOB's that buy up all the iMacs to resell for a higher price... well, I don't want to go there. It's just sad for the Mac users to have to deal with this because everyone whines about how expensive Macs are and this sucks for guy's like you that just want to buy direct @ the street price. I'm waiting to get my GF a new iMac because the first runs have had some issues with them so it's not bad to just wait it out.
And another thing... a Mac mini would run great (the new ones) with an SSD so.

[Frodo]

The MBP has slightly more appeal due to eSATA, but I'm not convinced the differential is that extreme other than the fact that different drives and the audio I/O would be using different busses since I don't think eSATA collapses down to FW and/or URB at a significant part of the MBP architecture.

That the audio I/O use different busses is a huge part of the appeal. I wouldn't underrate the MBP in an effort to justify getting a Mac Mini. That doesn't mean that your reasons for getting a Mac Mini are incorrect in any way on their own.

But your statement about on-location recording seemed to put a feather in the cap of an MBP. I can't help but think of the Apogee Mobile system as a strong vote for something approaching a decisive and exceptional configuration which lives up to a professional standard in quality and reliability.




Of course, everything comes at a price. I do understand with great sensitivity that it's about getting the most bang for the buck and not about spending the most buck and feeling the bang of regret afterwards.

If you're sold on the MacMini, then that's a step in the right direction. The next step would be to simply examine the possibilities and limitations of what the Mac Mini has to offer you. If those limitations are unacceptable, then it's time to look at a different machine to examine how it benefits or impedes your needs.

The Apogee example was *not* a recommendation by any means--but only meant to illustrate that a major developer has now put all of its eggs into the Mac platform and have taken the horsepower of the MBPs pretty seriously. That speaks very highly of these laptops.

These questions remain:

1. Will a lesser machine offer ENOUGH benefits for what you need to do?

2. Where price is indeed an object (where Want and Need are keenly felt but Abundance does not necessarily rejoice), how do terms like "cost" and "value" part ways? Is $600-800 for a Mac Mini the definitive solution to be had more quickly or is that same $600-800 a down payment towards a better machine?

Let's try something, which I hope is not too painful. Let's play a game and start with a blank slate.

With all considerations for your production needs on the table, put together the IDEAL system for yourself. This will shed new light on the decision making process and keep your needs in focus.

Once you've done that, consider what aspects are extraneous with all considerations given to your own growth potential. It's easy to outgrow a system if you whittle away at it too much today only to find yourself in a pickle tomorrow.

Then, consider a time frame in which you can actually purchase that new system. With that out of the way, ask yourself if you can wait that long.

Now.

The ideal system may be a long time coming while the old system may not be cutting it. Know with a full heart what your interim solutions will be.

At this point, weigh the cost of the interim solution with the more ideal solution. The aggregate cost of all of it should be a guide to what you might spend over time. Do you want to spend a little now and a lot later, or do you want to spend something in the middle now without having to spend more later (say 2-5 years from now)?

Remember, it's only a game, but it's also a good exercise which might help you find the best solution when you're ready to upgrade.

Do you spend $100 for "this utility" or "that VI", or do you put that same $100 in your cookie jar in reserve for your dream machine?

[newrigel]

I still think a mac mini would be sufficient to track with... or even an older macbook for on location. Your not using any plugs and that's the issue. You could run a verb in there for the one's who need it. I think less is more. If your just tracking stereo sources the Apogee one is fine but that's a whole other issue entirely.
I'd still have something formidable @ home to get er' done!

[Frodo]

I still think a mac mini would be sufficient to track with... or even an older macbook for on location. Your not using any plugs and that's the issue. You could run a verb in there for the one's who need it. I think less is more. If your just tracking stereo sources the Apogee one is fine but that's a whole other issue entirely.
I'd still have something formidable @ home to get er' done!

I completely agree with you, newrigel. No need to go overboard, but the little visionary game mentioned in my previous post was meant to find out what "overboard" really encompassed.

I hope I was careful enough *not* to suggest or imply that the Mac Mini might be a bad idea even as I mused over other options. But I was unaware of the depth of mhschmieder's on-location needs until today.

My thought was that-- "boy, that Apogee Mobile system is pretty tidy", but that was not apart from finding a more cost effective way of doing the same things.

MH is our plugin/VI champ around here for the way he's always so impressively on top of clever new releases. I can only imagine how such plugins can bring an aging system to its knees. I just don't want to see the fellow spend more money than he needs to, but neither do I want to see him toss good and rare cash after a band-aid solution that's going to cost him more funds before he's ready to make such an investment.

If the MacMini is the solution, then I say "bravo"!

[mhschmieder]

Thanks, guys. It's actually a bit more down to iMac vs. Mac Book Pro -- I only see Mac Mini in an interim role due to the delays in iMac 27" models (probably because Apple has to fix some design flaws, but maybe due to supply/demand), and uncertainty over how soon the MBP and MP will be updated.

So I've been trying to figure out which combinations of main computer (MBP, iMac, MacPro) and Mac Mini would be worthwhile long-term (vs. a single machine). My default decision is to skip the Mac Mini. I need to be 100% confident it's really going to pay off as a VE PRO slave, and have decided against the extra effort of swapping out its hard drive.

It seems the MBP is slightly easier to upgrade than the Mini, in terms of memory and hard drive, and I learned to my surprise the other day that the current models already support Apple-installed SSD's. But I thought SSD's were for reliability and were actually much slower than SATA II drives?

I hate laptops -- always have. I can't use the trackpad or the keyboard without CTS setting in almost immediately, and adding external mouse/keyboard is still awkward in terms of viewing angle for the monitor.

But I set my audio projects up in detail before going to a remote session -- and most of my work is MIDI and at home at this point, so there's no guarantee that my remote session work is going to pick up (I've had three things fall through this year as it is).

Even with prior project setup, the tiny laptop screen requires LOTS of scrolling -- just like my current 15" iMac does. Fortunately DP7's new features have mitigated the need for extensive Mix Window scrolling, in either dimension, so one of my primary reasons for finding a laptop inconvenient at a session may be less relevant now.

The way time is flying, I may as well wait. My drop-dead deadlines can be accomplished on my current computer with my usual workarounds, through the month of January. The frustration factor is more related to legacy projects that remain 98% finished, and the possibility of losing touch (or credibility) with people originally associated with those projects, as more time goes by.

The bigger frustration is photography, as each point release update to Adobe's products renders my CS4 based applications less and less usable. I gave up on even comparing two JPEG photos today, as it took more than a minute for each thumbnail to load.

And though I have found a gazillion workarounds and alternate workflows to allow me to accomplish professional-level mixes, serious digital photographic processing is really out of the question on this computer. How many promises have I broken by now? Well, a few of the people understand, but not all of them.

[newrigel]

I still think a mac mini would be sufficient to track with... or even an older macbook for on location. Your not using any plugs and that's the issue. You could run a verb in there for the one's who need it. I think less is more. If your just tracking stereo sources the Apogee one is fine but that's a whole other issue entirely.
I'd still have something formidable @ home to get er' done!

I completely agree with you, newrigel. No need to go overboard, but the little visionary game mentioned in my previous post was meant to find out what "overboard" really encompassed.

I hope I was careful enough *not* to suggest or imply that the Mac Mini might be a bad idea even as I mused over other options. But I was unaware of the depth of mhschmieder's on-location needs until today.

My thought was that-- "boy, that Apogee Mobile system is pretty tidy", but that was not apart from finding a more cost effective way of doing the same things.

MH is our plugin/VI champ around here for the way he's always so impressively on top of clever new releases. I can only imagine how such plugins can bring an aging system to its knees. I just don't want to see the fellow spend more money than he needs to, but neither do I want to see him toss good and rare cash after a band-aid solution that's going to cost him more funds before he's ready to make such an investment.

If the MacMini is the solution, then I say "bravo"!

MH is a very difficult one to please indeed. I'm just echoing his thoughts.
For what I'm getting, he's just wanting something more versatile and he want's the power of the i7 (and I can see why) with portability and not having to compromise... (I'd still just rack up a Mac Pro... but I'm a nut)
Frodo as always, you definitely know the ropes and in no way did I feel what you said was misleading @ all. The issue seems to be the "bang for the buck" and I'm totally with MH here. Hell, I don't have the $$ to get everything I'd like to have but I have everything I need so in that context...

[mhschmieder]

All of the comments have been quite useful. So much is abstract for me due to the EXTREME disconnect between the G4 iMac architecture and all that has come along since (including differences with full-on pro towers), that it is often hard to confidently extrapolate more than one or two degrees from where one sits.

Frodo's comments about the contribution of the MBP's ExpressCard port (especially using eSATA for a streaming sample drive such as VSL libraries), to the overall throughput and performance of the Total System (including Firewire audio and external hard drives) are especially revealing.

I am satisfied with waiting for the MBP updates. I can come up with something makeshift to sit the MBP higher than desk-level, and use current keyboard and mouse. It's no different at a remote session than taking them with the iMac, and probably the hutch could easily be taken and set up somewhere as well. There might even be some affordsable commercial ones.

I do realise AppleCare would be a necessity for an MBP as their failure rate is quite high. This scares me a bit, concerning what my G4 iMac has gone through all these years with barely a hiccup in terms of hard drive errors (maybe one every 18 months on average, and easily fixed with Disc Repair). But it may be that new iMacs aren't as reliable as mine either.

Refurbs aren't very economical as they barely mark off as much as the tax adds back in. Buying on-line and out-of-state is cheapest, until/unless Congress closes that loophole.

But as I mentioned in a separate post last week, further investigation of the MacBook Pro convinced me that it has gotten a bad rap as being the least bang-for-buck of any Mac. Once you dig beneath the surface specs, it really is pretty close to a MacPro except for only having one internal drive and of course being one to two generations behind (as are all the other Macs, except for this unique window of i5/i7 iMacs).

Laptops are now the lifeblood, so I think it highly likely that Apple will meet MacRumours' "average update cycle" with a new release by late January. And unless it is seriously less powerful than the i7 iMac, it will get my vote.

And regardless, the separate ExpressCard port probably MORE than makes up for any differential that might be there in the CPU if they can't find a way to make an i5 or i7 processor work without heating up in a laptop. So, it wouldn't take much of a pip to current MBP 17" specs to convince me it's the wisest purchase, even though I do not lead a laptop lifestyle and never will.

On the other hand, if Apple surprises us and brings out a new MacPro line in January, including a non-crippled entry-level model (whether ot not cheaper than this year's model)... so timing is everything.

I think I've just talked myself out of a Mac Mini in the short term. Porting everything to a new computer is time-consuming -- especially as this will be the first time I've ever done it at home (at work is easy, since there are so few programs involved with software development vs. audio production).

[Frodo]

For what I'm getting, he's just wanting something more versatile and he want's the power of the i7 (and I can see why) with portability and not having to compromise...

Our beloved Schmieder needs an extra $9000 floating at his disposal--- $2500 for the computer and the rest for pure fun.

[twistedtom]

Just MHO is that buying a computer that will meet your future needs is a good idea, just look how long we made our G4's work for us. With the choice between the MBP and the iMac the questions are do you need portability? If the size of the screen on a MBP is ok do you need a 27" iMac or will a smaller one work? I say buy the best system that you can afford, just saying my 2 cents worth.

I do a lot of Photoshop and the difference between my system now and the duel 1G G4 I had is hugh. Doing 3d and movie compositing were hell on my G4. There is a better world out there for you.

[mhschmieder]

The MBP screen would be a "convenience" feature that might only rarely get used (along with its keyboard and trackpad). I need a HUGE screen, to be effective. 15" doesn't cut it, and my guess is that the huge screen (27" vs. 21-23") would really improve workflow and ability to select best photos, if not quite as important for audio work (yet the largest screen at least allows for multiple app windows, or a PDF document side-by-side with a DAW session).

I'm busy composing/recording towards deadlines right now, so lost my window of opportunity to make a decision and run with it, which is just as well. I don't expect to have time to revisit the question of my next computer until after the NAMM Show. By then, maybe the i7 iMacs will be back in production and problem-free.

I have learned a lot from all the comments here and in related threads about maxing the performance of a computer in the modern world of VI's and streaming sample libraries. I will compare all of those notes to determine which factors are likely to contribute the most to having a satisfactory system.

After all, I don't want to repeat the mistake I made with my first-ever computer (my current one) with my next one. My mistake was evident the day I first tried to boot it. It's a miracle that I have managed to make it more productive vs. less productive, over the past eight years or so. I am not going to assume my next computer can last me that long, but with bang-for-buck on iMacs, it may not matter so much this time. MBP would need to stretch its life a bit longer to justify the price, but its increased flexibility (via eSATA etc.) might help its lifespan.

[twistedtom]

You are right about the 27" being better to work with. I have a 23" and a 20" and feel I could use even more screen size.
When running DP I put some windows on on display and use the other for plug-ins and things like the counter. Until one gets to the point where their neck hurts from turning it to look at all their screen space I do not think one can have to much screen. My personal opinion is that you would do well with the 27" iMac. I have a number of former PC friends who have recently got iMac's and love them. Once you go Apple you'll never go back.