New iMac, Macbook, Mac Mini

[pulsoc]

built in battery on the Mac Books....seriously?

I didn't even notice this. I guess that's the cost of buying industry leading products like apple - they have you over a barrel.

you're kidding right? built in battery on a laptop is a really bad idea.
so let me get this strait...no firewire and no interchangeable battery...but I'm supposed to ignore this because "they just work"?? I think I'll stick with my "crap" pc and it's 9 cell interchangeable battery and firewire ports.

yeah it's pretty lame, they make such great products and then leverage SO HARD against the consumer. Smart business I guess, it seems to be working for them the past few years. Everytime I'm on the verge of buying an iphone I see something new that the phone COULD do, but which apple specifically blocks. damn.

[3osc]

you're kidding right? built in battery on a laptop is a really bad idea.
so let me get this strait...no firewire and no interchangeable battery...but I'm supposed to ignore this because "they just work"?? I think I'll stick with my "crap" pc and it's 9 cell interchangeable battery and firewire ports.

You do know that by "built-in" they just mean it's behind a few screws, right? I don't know why that gets people in such a fit. I'd rather have a long-lasting battery that's tucked away neatly than something that juts out another inch or two behind the screen hinge. But that's just me, I have to carry this around all day for school and work.

I'm looking forward to the next Mac Pro update. Dual Core i9s maybeohgodplz?!1

[ekwipt]

Core i5 & i7 are great, you'd have to think seriously if you need a MacPro if all you needed was a firewire sound card and no DSP cards, etc.

Macbooks are a joke for audio stuff
Macbook Pro price drop in Australia (about time)

I wonder what happens when our dollar moves over the U.S.? Cheaper Macs than the American's? Say it aint so?

Mac minis are still too expensive for what they are, but the Macmini server addition is an interesting addition

[zalo]

bummer

a month ago i bought a 3.06 24 inch imac for 1699 refurb

guess i could have waited and got 3 more inches for free

it wouldnt have fit between my monitors on my desk though

[dru]

Already laid down my proposition to the wifey, if I sell my MBP/keyboard/mouse/case then i'm gonna get the Quad 27" iMac. Not due here til November though but that's also my b'day month! :D:D

[polyslax]

http://www.apple.com/

so are you getting paid to sell apple products?

No, I'm just in this for the good of humanity... plus a kitten is freed from Bill Gates dungeon every time a Mac is sold.

[Earwax69]

The first and second imac have a 300$ difference just for 500gb more and a 70$ Ati HD 4670. Its really not a good value for the money. The HD 4670 is like a 9600gt. Also, it'll probably not perform too well with a 2560x1440 resolution. (the third option)

The first and last options are obviously the best.

[supamonsta]

sweeeet, they really know how to fish their fanboys... I want one.


Let's imagine, yes, sadly only imagine, I'm ready to buy an Imac. which one seems the best deal?

core 2 duo 2x3,06ghz (3,33ghz is a bit too expensive for the little increase of 270mhz)

or Quad core 4x2.66Ghz (2.8ghz idem : not really much more power for a lot $$ more) ???

in their tech specs they say the new i5 and i7 are really more powerful than the "old" core2duos, even a 2.8 i7 is said to be 2,4x faster than a 3.06Ghz core2duo...

what do you guys think about that, knowing that the price difference between the 2 is 300 euros...
do we really need quad core? will we really need quad core one day?


what would be the best choice for a home-studio user?

cheers

[abletoff]

Having a quad core without Dsp possibility seems a waste to me. You can perfectly work with Native, but it's a waste of computer space nonetheless. Maybe it's my Uad addiction, having tried most of the plugs out there, I'd say only the awesome Stillwell come close, and some recent Waves offerings. For the latter it's better having a quad, but the the whole prige gain structure would be weird, I mean, you have to go pro, get a Mac Pro.
These are not audio-aimed machines, are generic high power computers at (finally) an interesting price. I'd happily get a 27/i7 to do video editing, multimedia masturbation and smooth everyday computing.

[ian hands]

So if Live can use a dual core, what happens when it comes across 4?
Does it just sound better but Live won't be able to make use of the additional cores?

[3osc]

So if Live can use a dual core, what happens when it comes across 4?
Does it just sound better but Live won't be able to make use of the additional cores?

Yup. 4 cores = 2x's the warmth, 2x's the analog and 2x's the pro-ness.

[citizenchris099]

you're kidding right? built in battery on a laptop is a really bad idea.
so let me get this strait...no firewire and no interchangeable battery...but I'm supposed to ignore this because "they just work"?? I think I'll stick with my "crap" pc and it's 9 cell interchangeable battery and firewire ports.

You do know that by "built-in" they just mean it's behind a few screws, right? I don't know why that gets people in such a fit. I'd rather have a long-lasting battery that's tucked away neatly than something that juts out another inch or two behind the screen hinge. But that's just me, I have to carry this around all day for school and work.

I'm looking forward to the next Mac Pro update. Dual Core i9s maybeohgodplz?!1

While you're rationalizing....go ahead and explain why "no firewire = not such a bad idea".

[supamonsta]

4 cores = 2x's the warmth, 2x's the analog and 2x's the pro-ness.

well, I'd rather save money, wait a bit ang get an octocore mac pro... 8x's PRO-NESS!!!! yeeeah.


without joking, does a quad core really matter, e.g., in terms of speed when rendering audio to disk?

does live really takes advantage of a multi-core (>2) ?

cheers

[commuter]

without joking, does a quad core really matter, e.g., in terms of speed when rendering audio to disk?

does live really takes advantage of a multi-core (>2) ?

simple, i have a 2,4 ghz unibody macbook pro , live 8 performance test result = 52%
i also have a Q6660 quad 2,4 ghz PC result = 27% (on XP and OSX 10.5.7 same result)

So yeah!! A quadcore is definitely a HUGE improvement in terms of performance with LIVE

[ekwipt]

The first and second imac have a 300$ difference just for 500gb more and a 70$ Ati HD 4670. Its really not a good value for the money. The HD 4670 is like a 9600gt. Also, it'll probably not perform too well with a 2560x1440 resolution. (the third option)

The first and last options are obviously the best.

For gaming perhaps, but we're here at the abes forum

Buy a Playstaion?