New Apple MacBook out
here is some info on replacing the hard disks on the new macbook.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1750
these machines seem like a good option for those not wanting to drop the cash on a pro line laptop. personally i like the pro line better, the silver, the non-glassed 15inch thin ass laptop, but thats just me.
these new macbooks are still bitchin.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1750
these machines seem like a good option for those not wanting to drop the cash on a pro line laptop. personally i like the pro line better, the silver, the non-glassed 15inch thin ass laptop, but thats just me.
these new macbooks are still bitchin.
"Work Longer UnpluggedDanny Futuro wrote:the apple website mentions NOTHING about battery life.
wtf?
MacBook offers up to 6 hours of battery life. (2.5 hours of DVD playback, 3.5 hours with wireless turned on.) Here’s how to squeeze out every last second of battery power when you need it.
* Turn off AirPort and Bluetooth if you’re not using them
* Disconnect peripherals not in use
* Quit applications not in use
* Eject CDs and DVDs not in use
* Choose Energy Saver in System Preferences, click the Show Details button, and:
o Select “Better Battery Life”
o Set MacBook to sleep after five minutes (or less) of inactivity
o Put the display to sleep after five minutes (or less) of inactivity
o Check the box next to “Put the hard disk to sleep when possible”
"
for some reason it's on the Wireless page instead of the spec page
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 am
Digi V wrote:here is some info on replacing the hard disks on the new macbook.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1750
these machines seem like a good option for those not wanting to drop the cash on a pro line laptop. personally i like the pro line better, the silver, the non-glassed 15inch thin ass laptop, but thats just me.
these new macbooks are still bitchin.
thanks for that. does that mean you can put a 7200 RPM HD in there, or should I assume not since its not one of the mentioned upgrades in the spec's...?
thanks
-
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:02 am
the 950 is a great chipset if you google it you will find plenty of specs and it even plays 3d games though obviously not really fast.Tarekith wrote:Why do people keep assuming that shared graphics memory can be "solved" by just adding more memory?
this graphics set is definitly faster than any ibook or g4 macmini graphics
it is noticably faster so is an upgrade not a down grade even with it stealing a bit of your ram.. unless u are a hardcore gamer it is n o issue at all.. intergrated graphics use to be terrible they are no long an issue
i saw a pc guy with this chipset in his P4 and he was extremly pleased with it even on his games and he pushed his machine hard he could have upgraded as it was a PC box but said frankly why bother everthing flew along very nicely at 1280 x 1024
MacbookPro Core2Duo 17" 160 gb SATA 2gb ram.
Korg M3
1 Terabyte External Drive
Presonus Firebox
Live 6,
Korg M3
1 Terabyte External Drive
Presonus Firebox
Live 6,
-
- Posts: 19072
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:46 pm
- Location: Ableton Forum Administrator
- Contact:
It's not a question of how things look, or how much system memory it uses. Shared graphics systems require a lot of CPU overhead shuttling those graphic requests back and forth on the memory buss. It's like (roughly) running at 60% of your CPU capabilities.
It's an issue because for years shared graphics were the one thing to avoid for music laptops. I have no doubts that you can make SOME music on one of these, but do i want to pay that much for scaled back performance?
It's an issue because for years shared graphics were the one thing to avoid for music laptops. I have no doubts that you can make SOME music on one of these, but do i want to pay that much for scaled back performance?
Sad, but true. I used to play with a 7200rpm FW400 hard drive, and at every show I would get occasional "trrrrrr"-type glitches at unpredictable spots. I moved my files to an internal Toshiba 5400rpm drive, and never had any of those problems since.kabuki wrote:BTW, External drives (Including FW400) have poor performance in Live. BAD Bottleneck. OK For the Studio, not good for live use.
-
- Posts: 11416
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
- Location: Seattle
You know what? this could be one of the few times that the limitation works in a Live 5 users favor!Tarekith wrote:It's not a question of how things look, or how much system memory it uses. Shared graphics systems require a lot of CPU overhead shuttling those graphic requests back and forth on the memory buss. It's like (roughly) running at 60% of your CPU capabilities.
It's an issue because for years shared graphics were the one thing to avoid for music laptops. I have no doubts that you can make SOME music on one of these, but do i want to pay that much for scaled back performance?
Seems that with the macbooks the power management features shut down the second CPU when Live is running normally. The graphics in Live are handled by a second CPU, it's the only dual processor aware part of Live until 6 in June. Well the lack of a graphics card in the macbook should have Live keeping ALL video duties on the second CPU, and effectively force the OS to perform at full speed.
Long winded way of saying that it's possible that the problems with the CPU bottlekneck in the macbook pro line will not affect the macbooks because of what would normally be a limitation!
If they are in stores, somebody should run the Live 5 test on the 2Ghz!
-
- Posts: 698
- Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:01 am
- Location: Brazil
shaneblyth wrote:the 950 is a great chipset if you google it you will find plenty of specs and it even plays 3d games though obviously not really fast.Tarekith wrote:Why do people keep assuming that shared graphics memory can be "solved" by just adding more memory?
this graphics set is definitly faster than any ibook or g4 macmini graphics
it is noticably faster so is an upgrade not a down grade even with it stealing a bit of your ram.. unless u are a hardcore gamer it is n o issue at all.. intergrated graphics use to be terrible they are no long an issue
i saw a pc guy with this chipset in his P4 and he was extremly pleased with it even on his games and he pushed his machine hard he could have upgraded as it was a PC box but said frankly why bother everthing flew along very nicely at 1280 x 1024
Here you'll find a comparison between the G4 Mac mini and the Intel Mac mini: http://www.barefeats.com/mincd.html
this is what I was worried about. Could make or break the performance possibly? Can't wait for some test results...Tarekith wrote:It's not a question of how things look, or how much system memory it uses. Shared graphics systems require a lot of CPU overhead shuttling those graphic requests back and forth on the memory buss. It's like (roughly) running at 60% of your CPU capabilities.
It's an issue because for years shared graphics were the one thing to avoid for music laptops. I have no doubts that you can make SOME music on one of these, but do i want to pay that much for scaled back performance?
no prevailing genre of music:
http://alonetone.com/glu
http://alonetone.com/glu