New Apple MacBook out

Discuss music production with Ableton Live.
Post Reply
Digi V
Posts: 580
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:18 am

Post by Digi V » Tue May 16, 2006 11:12 pm

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.

gomi
Posts: 1133
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: earth

Post by gomi » Tue May 16, 2006 11:17 pm

Danny Futuro wrote:the apple website mentions NOTHING about battery life.

wtf?
"Work Longer Unplugged

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

Tarekith
Posts: 19072
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:46 pm
Location: Ableton Forum Administrator
Contact:

Post by Tarekith » Tue May 16, 2006 11:26 pm

Why do people keep assuming that shared graphics memory can be "solved" by just adding more memory?


:roll:
Tarekith
Ableton Forum Administrator
https://tarekith.com

richardl
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: San Francisco CA

Post by richardl » Tue May 16, 2006 11:34 pm

Tarekith wrote:Why do people keep assuming that shared graphics memory can be "solved" by just adding more memory?


:roll:
Why do people keep assuming it's a problem?

4onthfloor
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 am

Post by 4onthfloor » Tue May 16, 2006 11:55 pm

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

shaneblyth
Posts: 435
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:02 am

Post by shaneblyth » Wed May 17, 2006 12:12 am

Tarekith wrote:Why do people keep assuming that shared graphics memory can be "solved" by just adding more memory?


:roll:
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.
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,

Tarekith
Posts: 19072
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:46 pm
Location: Ableton Forum Administrator
Contact:

Post by Tarekith » Wed May 17, 2006 12:20 am

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?
Tarekith
Ableton Forum Administrator
https://tarekith.com

ilia
Posts: 787
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 4:12 am
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by ilia » Wed May 17, 2006 12:45 am

kabuki wrote:BTW, External drives (Including FW400) have poor performance in Live. BAD Bottleneck. OK For the Studio, not good for live use.
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.

Machinesworking
Posts: 11416
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Machinesworking » Wed May 17, 2006 12:48 am

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?
You know what? this could be one of the few times that the limitation works in a Live 5 users favor!

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! :wink:

If they are in stores, somebody should run the Live 5 test on the 2Ghz! :)

erichkopp
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 9:50 pm
Location: South Florida

Post by erichkopp » Wed May 17, 2006 1:03 am

I can't wait to go check one of these out. The price is at exactly what I was hoping for, but nowhere near what I was expecting.
Last edited by erichkopp on Wed May 17, 2006 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Digi V
Posts: 580
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:18 am

Post by Digi V » Wed May 17, 2006 1:05 am

who cares about the bottle neck issues when live 6 is so close?



i wonder if the macbooks will have the whine.

chris vine
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:01 am
Location: Brazil

Post by chris vine » Wed May 17, 2006 1:06 am


ocp
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 3:38 pm
Location: Porto, Portugal
Contact:

Post by ocp » Wed May 17, 2006 1:38 am

shaneblyth wrote:
Tarekith wrote:Why do people keep assuming that shared graphics memory can be "solved" by just adding more memory?


:roll:
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.
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
MacBook Pro 2.0, 2 GB RAM, Mac OS 10.6.8, Live 7.0.18, etc.

http://ocp.pt.vu
http://doporto.pt.to

FaX-01
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 3:58 am

Post by FaX-01 » Wed May 17, 2006 2:10 am

forgie wrote:Now people can finally STFU about Apple and laptops being expensive.



I still would not use a laptop with built in 'shared' video for audio use myself none the less .
My aren't the wings of butterflies beautiful and do they not make wonderful perturbations.....

glu
Posts: 2769
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 12:27 am

Post by glu » Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 am

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?
this is what I was worried about. Could make or break the performance possibly? Can't wait for some test results...
no prevailing genre of music:
http://alonetone.com/glu

Post Reply