Apple i7 laptops, anyone know when?

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Apple i7 laptops, anyone know when?
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

Posted by Fledz on Mar-13-2010 02:24:

quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
just cause it doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it's not (and shouldn't be a majore concern for lots of people)

and the same comment to kit... just because you think computer purchasing is black and white (good or bad) doesn't mean everyone does... things you value might be useless to others for example...

i completely agree with what rann said, and it's why i ended up getting a a mac.. i personally was willing to sacrifice minimal processing differences for overall system stability... again, it's personal opinion, and about personal work-flow, but that's exactly why the PC vs Mac argument is pointless and never ends...

EDIT: OH, and for logic too

any person i've met doing graphics, or design at tertiary levels i've ever met have macs, and are told to get them by their universities... why would this be, if PCs have such amazing graphics cards??

FYI, Win7 is technically more secure than OSX in case you missed all the articles and discussion about it.

There's more viruses for Win because there are just that many more Win machines out there, so the hackers have a much larger target.
If OSX ever gets to a comparative market share as Windows (good luck with that one), then we'll all have a good laugh at how ridiculous the statement that Macs are less virus prone is.

Point is, you should be looking at value for money when buying and in the current climate, a PC is better value for money than a Mac at the top end.

Posted by EgosXII on Mar-13-2010 02:42:

quote:
Originally posted by Fledz
FYI, Win7 is technically more secure than OSX in case you missed all the articles and discussion about it.

There's more viruses for Win because there are just that many more Win machines out there, so the hackers have a much larger target.
If OSX ever gets to a comparative market share as Windows (good luck with that one), then we'll all have a good laugh at how ridiculous the statement that Macs are less virus prone is.

Point is, you should be looking at value for money when buying and in the current climate, a PC is better value for money than a Mac at the top end.

i know that man, i wasn't talking in terms of how things should be, or could be, but how things are...

the truth is it's almost impossible to get viruses on macs, and they are generally pretty stable, which for SOME people will win over a slightly cheaper, or slightly better, PC which does not cover the above bases...

i was just trying to point out the other side... i went with a mac after having a PC my whole ccomputer-using life because i wanted logic, and a comp that was really stable, in general, AND for using external devices...

havn't used windows 7, was merely pointing out the reality of my personal case, and what i think is pretty common...

perhaps you don't have a stability issue using windows, but i think you'll find a LARGE amount of people do, even if they are caused by the user...

also, viruses have to do with windows giving out their code like whores too doesn't it? to get the mac development codes is really really difficult...?
that was my understanding anyway... more people using windows = more people having viruses, but people creating the viruses need the development kits to do it...

Posted by kitphillips on Mar-13-2010 04:35:

quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
he truth is it's almost impossible to get viruses on macs, and they are generally pretty stable, which for SOME people will win over a slightly cheaper, or slightly better, PC which does not cover the above bases...

Thats what I keep saying though, its not just a slightly better PC, its a whole new generation of processors with 2 MORE CORES! And PC are several generations ahead in terms of graphics too. Its not just a small differenece, its vast.

There was a thread on the ableton forums where they compared the performance of various computers using ableton in a standardised benchmark. So this directly translates into audio processing improvement.

The general score for macbook pros was around 47-70%(!!!) CPU usage with the average being around 60% or so. My computer (3 years old, toshiba laptop with a core2duo and a 4200 RPM disk) scored about 60-65. A new Core i7 scored something like 20-30 (mostly around 20%). Thats a huge increase in performance, and thats why I'm obsessing about it. To say that mac hardware can compete in the current climate is quite simply wrong, the PC will probably perform around three times faster.

http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic....111880&start=15
look at the figures on the macbooks yourself and tell me they're a good buy.

Posted by kitphillips on Mar-13-2010 04:42:

quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
You kind of self defeated the post by opening with "for me" then saying it's not about criteria. What I'm trying to say, is that people look for different things in a platform or system.

To most producers they want stability and fast workflow - this is the main priority for anyone that is serious. I think processing power is becoming less of an overall issue as the rate at which CPU speeds have been growing has slowed dramatically over the last few years - the playing field is more level than ever.

That's why I believe that (as Egos said) the minimal trade off in slightly lesser CPU power to get system stability, OSX, Logic and an incredibly well designed system is worth it. Also, I don't see any of my producer friends struggling in terms of CPU power with their macbooks and any one of the DAW's they use. This indicates to me (at least anecdotally) that CPU power is not an issue with mactops.

Therefore the need for super CPU speed becomes less a point for criteria of making your platform selection.

I don't get how you can say battery life isn't an issue for consideration - we're talking about laptops not desktops. And yes, a lot of people will use them in a fixed situation but many have portable rigs where battery life is a big concern. I've got a brand new asus laptop and I get 2.5 hours if I'm lucky.

I've seen friends get 5hours+ out of their mactops.

You can get stability and fast workflow with a PC. It takes very minimal maintanence to do so.

Anyone who's serious will never run important music applications while running off battery power. Ever. No DJ will play live without a battery pack. Anything else your doing that needs mobility isn't really relevant to this discussion since it won't be music related.

From where I'm sitting, CPU speed is a huge issue, and anyone doing more forward thinking stuff will agree I suspect. If your just mixing down 12 tracks then its not an issue, but if your running reaktor and MAX/MSP and mangling a signal to death, then it really is. Lots of producers I know struggle with CPU a lot. And as I pointed out before, its not just a "small" discepancy between the macs and PCs.

I don't have a problem with people buying mac desktops or lower end macbooks right now, but I think anyone about to buy a macbook pro is doing themselves a disservice that they'll really start to feel in six months when everyone's running core i7 quads for audio and they're stuck with a core2 duo.

Posted by EgosXII on Mar-13-2010 04:43:

Posted by EgosXII on Mar-13-2010 04:53:

quote:
Originally posted by kitphillips
You can get stability and fast workflow with a PC. It takes very minimal maintanence to do so.

Anyone who's serious will never run important music applications while running off battery power. Ever. No DJ will play live without a battery pack. Anything else your doing that needs mobility isn't really relevant to this discussion since it won't be music related.

From where I'm sitting, CPU speed is a huge issue, and anyone doing more forward thinking stuff will agree I suspect. If your just mixing down 12 tracks then its not an issue, but if your running reaktor and MAX/MSP and mangling a signal to death, then it really is. Lots of producers I know struggle with CPU a lot. And as I pointed out before, its not just a "small" discepancy between the macs and PCs.

I don't have a problem with people buying mac desktops or lower end macbooks right now, but I think anyone about to buy a macbook pro is doing themselves a disservice that they'll really start to feel in six months when everyone's running core i7 quads for audio and they're stuck with a core2 duo.

i routinely run logic with assloads of plugs off battery power without my sound card on my white macbook with no worries at all... it usually has a bit of a 'warm-up' stage on tunes that are in their final stages (with assloads of plugins and channels), but it's usually fine, and would be a consideration for me if i was buying a new laptop because i do a lot of fundamental production on the move, just with headphones and laptop...

i think your last mini-paragraph is a good point though in general for sure
it's why i decided to get a personally updated white one, instead of a MBP

further edit:
for me personally i don't care about djing with my laptop, so though speed is obviously very important i really don't mind that much if logic overloads once in a while and i have to hit 'continue' before i can push play again, if OVERALL the system never crashes etc..
i havn't tried windows 7, but i've never had to force reset my mac, never had BSOD or anything similar.

Posted by Fledz on Mar-13-2010 05:34:

Running Logic is irrelevant. If you want to use Logic then your choice has already been made for you.

What sequencers don't support more than 2 cores?

Posted by EgosXII on Mar-13-2010 05:42:

took that out, dunno what i was thinking, i was wronnggg. so wrong

the consideration of using PCs on the move would also be relevant to me though...

in fact i'm considering getting a cheap small PC that i can take everywhere with me, and i'm hoping to use ableton on it for jotting down ideas

Posted by kitphillips on Mar-13-2010 07:06:

quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
ok this is all fair enough, i was speaking without realising how improved the new stuff is, sorry about that.

edit: there is a huge difference across the board though to be fair, the top of the line mac (desktop) got 21% which seems to be around the same as the top of the line pcs... while shit pcs and shit macs got around the same as well...

again this is not taking into account the new pcs etc i suppose..

Nah nah, your totally right, top of the line mac desktop = top of the line PC desktop.

Its just macbooks that are a problem at the moment, and it looks like they'll keep being a problem if they put a dual core i7 in them rather than giving the option of a quad core.

Posted by EgosXII on Mar-13-2010 08:33:

quote:
Originally posted by kitphillips
Nah nah, your totally right, top of the line mac desktop = top of the line PC desktop.

Its just macbooks that are a problem at the moment, and it looks like they'll keep being a problem if they put a dual core i7 in them rather than giving the option of a quad core.

righto i think we both pretty much agree then

Posted by DJ RANN on Mar-13-2010 21:07:

quote:
Originally posted by kitphillips
Thats what I keep saying though, its not just a slightly better PC, its a whole new generation of processors with 2 MORE CORES! And PC are several generations ahead in terms of graphics too. Its not just a small differenece, its vast.

There was a thread on the ableton forums where they compared the performance of various computers using ableton in a standardised benchmark. So this directly translates into audio processing improvement.

The general score for macbook pros was around 47-70%(!!!) CPU usage with the average being around 60% or so. My computer (3 years old, toshiba laptop with a core2duo and a 4200 RPM disk) scored about 60-65. A new Core i7 scored something like 20-30 (mostly around 20%). Thats a huge increase in performance, and thats why I'm obsessing about it. To say that mac hardware can compete in the current climate is quite simply wrong, the PC will probably perform around three times faster.

http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic....111880&start=15
look at the figures on the macbooks yourself and tell me they're a good buy.

That forum test is pretty darn subjective and in my eyes completely useless for a scientific benchmark or analysis.

It doesn't take the following in to account:

1, Different soundcards/interfaces are better or worse (due to th effieciency of both their hardware and software) at handling audio, and therefore essentially taking the strain off the cpu. You've got people putting RMS's against onboars sound cards (WTF?).

2, The efficiency of the platform - you can't compare 21% on OSX to 21% win. It's meaningless.

3, The CPU % will have different implications based on the platform, soundcard, FSB, whatever, etc. For instance on my PC laptop anything above 75% makes it completely stutter and unusable, whereas on particularly heavy projects my imac copes fine well above 80%.

4, The prices of some of those computers vary incredibly - for instance some of those XPS laptops get in relative terms terrible scores as do the mac pros in relation to how much they cost.

I could go on and on as to why that thread is useless but I think you get the point.

I actually think mac pro's, while extremely powerful are terrible value for money, especially when you compare them to upper spec PC's or the relation of CPU power to price with an imac.

I do concur that mactops (especially MBP's) don't offer huge processing power to price ratio but I don't think it's really it's a big issue as people are making out, and they do offer good value if you're looking for a robust nicely designed laptop with decent processing power, a superb screen and amazing battery life.

If your just after CPU cycles and bus speeds then PC laptops are better for you.

I do think however, that for a desktop, you're a muppet if you don't consider imacs - you simply can't get that power, with those screens in such a well designed unit for that money. Seriously, I've tried speccing a PC system that competes with them and it doesn't exist.

Posted by Fledz on Mar-13-2010 23:34:

quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
I do think however, that for a desktop, you're a muppet if you don't consider imacs - you simply can't get that power, with those screens in such a well designed unit for that money. Seriously, I've tried speccing a PC system that competes with them and it doesn't exist.

Were you looking at a complete system or individual parts? To use a nice word that you just used, you're a muppet if you don't buy separate components and build your own desktop because it makes a massive difference in pricing, at least in this country.

Posted by kitphillips on Mar-15-2010 10:01:

quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
That forum test is pretty darn subjective and in my eyes completely useless for a scientific benchmark or analysis.

It doesn't take the following in to account:

1, Different soundcards/interfaces are better or worse (due to th effieciency of both their hardware and software) at handling audio, and therefore essentially taking the strain off the cpu. You've got people putting RMS's against onboars sound cards (WTF?).

2, The efficiency of the platform - you can't compare 21% on OSX to 21% win. It's meaningless.

3, The CPU % will have different implications based on the platform, soundcard, FSB, whatever, etc. For instance on my PC laptop anything above 75% makes it completely stutter and unusable, whereas on particularly heavy projects my imac copes fine well above 80%.

4, The prices of some of those computers vary incredibly - for instance some of those XPS laptops get in relative terms terrible scores as do the mac pros in relation to how much they cost.

I could go on and on as to why that thread is useless but I think you get the point.

I actually think mac pro's, while extremely powerful are terrible value for money, especially when you compare them to upper spec PC's or the relation of CPU power to price with an imac.

I do concur that mactops (especially MBP's) don't offer huge processing power to price ratio but I don't think it's really it's a big issue as people are making out, and they do offer good value if you're looking for a robust nicely designed laptop with decent processing power, a superb screen and amazing battery life.

If your just after CPU cycles and bus speeds then PC laptops are better for you.

I do think however, that for a desktop, you're a muppet if you don't consider imacs - you simply can't get that power, with those screens in such a well designed unit for that money. Seriously, I've tried speccing a PC system that competes with them and it doesn't exist.

Sorry, dude, I'm not trying to give you shit personally, but did you actually read the thread?

1/ Soundcards: totally agree, thats why the type and make of soundcard is listed. If your that bothered then compare system with the same sound card against one another.

2/ Silly statement, the number of tracks and effects you can run is the definition of the effectiveness of the platform (OS and all) as a music production solution. Thats exactly what we're talking about, how much power you can leverage with a certain system.

3/% is incredibly important, what are you talking about? System utilisation is the total usage of system resources i.e. how much time the system has to process the audio -how much time its taking. If it exceeds 100% then you get a buffer underrun. So this takes into account hard disk speed, RAM speed, FSB, everything. What you said simply isn't true. If you get a discrepancy of 5% thats fine, its still acceptable error IMO. Its a decent (not perfect, but decent) measure. I'm not going into why because it'll make this post bloated, but if you really want to debate then I'm happy to.

4/ What does price have to do with it, your argument is failing
we're simply looking at what computers offer value for money, the ones with core i7s in them are killing the MBPs. You can get a core i7 in a PC lappy for a decent price, much less than an MBP.

So nah, I don't really get the point.

Sorry if I'm coming across as bitchy, I'm not truing to be a dick, and I don't have anything really against mac as a solution. If you wanna run OSX and logic then I think its fair enough to pay extra for it. But I don't think its fair to pay extra and then have to put up with a very sub par system.

Fair enough about the imacs, or even mac pro's, I can see why it'd be good from a music perspective to have server class hardware in them, and all that power and expandability, you can spec them as fast as a PC desktop. But for MBPs, you CANNOT put together a solution as fast as a PC laptop. And that translates DIRECTLY, to them being weaker for music production.

EDIT: of course, if you can show me some solid data showing that quad core i7s are only equal to core2duos in terms of music production, then I'm happy to be proven wrong. But as it is, I'm convinced by this data that the i7s are stronger...

Posted by aLviNx80 on Mar-15-2010 12:48:

quote:
Originally posted by Lunar Phase 7
Who is the crazy fuck trying to produce on a netbook?

Did he succeed? Did he die? Did he ********?

haha ********

Posted by DJ RANN on Mar-15-2010 16:57:

quote:
Originally posted by kitphillips
Sorry, dude, I'm not trying to give you shit personally, but did you actually read the thread?

1/ Soundcards: totally agree, thats why the type and make of soundcard is listed. If your that bothered then compare system with the same sound card against one another.

2/ Silly statement, the number of tracks and effects you can run is the definition of the effectiveness of the platform (OS and all) as a music production solution. Thats exactly what we're talking about, how much power you can leverage with a certain system.

3/% is incredibly important, what are you talking about? System utilisation is the total usage of system resources i.e. how much time the system has to process the audio -how much time its taking. If it exceeds 100% then you get a buffer underrun. So this takes into account hard disk speed, RAM speed, FSB, everything. What you said simply isn't true. If you get a discrepancy of 5% thats fine, its still acceptable error IMO. Its a decent (not perfect, but decent) measure. I'm not going into why because it'll make this post bloated, but if you really want to debate then I'm happy to.

4/ What does price have to do with it, your argument is failing
we're simply looking at what computers offer value for money, the ones with core i7s in them are killing the MBPs. You can get a core i7 in a PC lappy for a decent price, much less than an MBP.

So nah, I don't really get the point.

Sorry if I'm coming across as bitchy, I'm not truing to be a dick, and I don't have anything really against mac as a solution. If you wanna run OSX and logic then I think its fair enough to pay extra for it. But I don't think its fair to pay extra and then have to put up with a very sub par system.

Fair enough about the imacs, or even mac pro's, I can see why it'd be good from a music perspective to have server class hardware in them, and all that power and expandability, you can spec them as fast as a PC desktop. But for MBPs, you CANNOT put together a solution as fast as a PC laptop. And that translates DIRECTLY, to them being weaker for music production.

EDIT: of course, if you can show me some solid data showing that quad core i7s are only equal to core2duos in terms of music production, then I'm happy to be proven wrong. But as it is, I'm convinced by this data that the i7s are stronger...

You missed the points completely Kit - I'm not being a dick or argumentative for the sake of it, just that dumb test is worse than comparing apples and oranges - it's like comparing fruit salads to each other.

1, I know you agree but the full problem is soundcards effect overall system performance (at least for the purposes of this test) meaning unless all of them have the same card the benchmarks listed are fucking meaningless.

2, Platforms perform differently at different loads because of the intrinsic nature of their programming. that's what i was getting at - for instance I've witnessed first hand that cubase on a mac vs. cubase on a PC behave differently at max loads. I know this becuase my tells Steinberg what's going to be in the next version and headaches it causes them between platforms. So no it's not silly as you can't accurately compare to the two platforms in this way.

3, that % is an incredibly esoteric way of getting some form of statistic. I don't think the accuracy is anywhere close to what you think it is. What about if they haven't defragmented their PC drive ever? What about if they've got tons of background tasks running such as antivirus, spyware or killers, or haven't repaired dik permissions ever. You should be getting my point soon about how shite this test really is.

4, The price of laptops is how you making your assumptions on value vs. performance. You wouldn't say it's fair to slag of a cheap netbook when put up against a top spec MBP so it has everything to do with it. The laptops (mac or PC) that score well in the test are not cheap by any means.

I'm just making the overall point that unless you compare newly formatted machines, both with exactly the sound card and software (etc), the test is going to be so inaccurate it's not worth paying attention to (as that thread is).

Anyway, we can round in circles but IMO that test isn't worth the server space it's stored on.

I honestly couldn't give a shit about the Mac vs PC debate - I think the macbooks are good value if raw processing power isn't your top concern and PC laptops are good value if that's your primary concern with the other factors I mentioned being secondary (screen battery life etc).

The MBP are over priced (period), as are the Mac pros but at least they offer blistering performance and stability if you do have the coin.

@fledz - I'm only ever talking about custom built PC's - I've never owned and would never buy (apart from Mac) a preconfigured PC.

I hold to the statement that you're going to have a very hard time buying components that are better than an imac and come in for less cash.

Posted by kitphillips on Mar-16-2010 07:26:

I think you can compensate for the effects of soundcards given that that information is provided. Its not that hard to analyse that data in your head and personally it drives me to the conclusion that the MBPs are very underpowered.

I take your point about formatting of disks etc, but honestly, for me, it still drives me to the same conclusion. Most of us who are home producers do have background tasks running like antivirus, etc all the time, and few of us get to defrag often, so they probably give good real world performance figures.

But yeah, this is going in circles already, so I'll just say that I agree that the MBPs are overpriced and mac pros can be well equipped.

Posted by echosystm on Mar-17-2010 09:04:

3.06GHz dual core Core2Duo CPU
21" IPS monitor
4GB DDR2 memory
500GB hard drive
8x DVD burner
128MB GeForce 9400M video card

Custom PC @ $1,580

24" Dell PVA monitor ($450)
2.66Ghz quad core i5 CPU ($255)
8gb Corsair DDR3 memory ($280)
1GB GeForce 9500GT video card ($70)
1TB Western Digital hard drive ($120)
22x Pioneer DVD burner ($40)
Gigabyte GA-P55-UD3 P55 motherboard ($140)
Antec NSK6580 case/PSU ($150)
Logitech Cordless Laser Desktop LX310 keyboard/mouse ($75)

The PC is basically twice as good.

Posted by Zak McKracken on Mar-17-2010 11:22:

except that the PC dont have a working operating system. and have lots of cables, and needs lots of space. makes lots of noise, heat and dust. and its ugly.

Posted by DJ RANN on Mar-17-2010 22:44:

quote:
Originally posted by palm
except that the PC dont have a working operating system. and have lots of cables, and needs lots of space. makes lots of noise, heat and dust. and its ugly.

bingo.

That PC system will sound like a jet engine most of the time, which is well useful in a studio environment.

And that screen is a peice of shite compared to the new LED imacs. Fuck dell don't even guarantee no dead pixels. If you want to compare you'd need to go for the Dell ultrasharp HD 24inch which is $599 (and doesn't have a built in webcam).

Also, the entry level imac (the one you specced) is only $1199 (or about $1050 if you know where to look ) - must suck to live in aus

Posted by Aesthetic on Mar-17-2010 23:28:

lol, it's easier to pirate stuff on a MAC than a PC you fucking gobshite.

quote:
Originally posted by RichieV
I said that or you are a big gaming nerd. Those are the only possible reasons one would chose windows over osx. That or you are a sadist. Why get slapped by a fat girl in leather when you can just let windows do the damage pro bono.

Posted by DJ RANN on Mar-17-2010 23:50:

quote:
Originally posted by Aesthetic
lol, it's easier to pirate stuff on a MAC than a PC you fucking gobshite.

Really. If you can find a copy of DSP quattro I'll give you my first born.

Posted by EgosXII on Mar-18-2010 03:26:

quote:
Originally posted by Aesthetic
lol, it's easier to pirate stuff on a MAC than a PC you fucking gobshite.

haha yeah, also, there's no cracked copy of ableton for mac..

never use ableton so d/ld it originally, deleted it since then of course, half cause it didn't work and kept crashing, and half cause i got the launchpad edition which is good as

Posted by Fledz on Mar-18-2010 08:17:

quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
Fuck dell don't even guarantee no dead pixels.

Err yea, pretty sure they do. WHo gives a shit anyway? We're not just comparing Dells to Macs, we're looking at the big picture.

Simple fact is Rann, we're all happy to look at this objectively and primarily from a cost vs benefit view point.
Unlike you, as you're too busy trying to cram Apples logo further up your ass to actually make a half decent argument.

Posted by orTof�nChiLd on Mar-18-2010 08:17:

All i know is that i never gota virus or trojan since i owned a mac

Posted by kitphillips on Mar-18-2010 08:22:

quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
haha yeah, also, there's no cracked copy of ableton for mac..

never use ableton so d/ld it originally, deleted it since then of course, half cause it didn't work and kept crashing, and half cause i got the launchpad edition which is good as

Check your facts mate, theres been a cracked copy of every version of ableton for mac since 5 or 6.

I've heard that there aren't as many cracks available generally though.

Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »