The Best I need Macbook Pro or Imac

[Jayoel]

16gb or 8gb Ram

Quad Core or not

if I can record 8 tracks at once

play back 20 tracks + with many plugs I'm happy.

[albee1952]

4 gig of RAM is plenty for 32 track sessions. The quad core will stomp the dual core. The new 27" iMac quad looks to be an awesome machine(this from a PC user).

[Dism]

Originally Posted by albee1952

4 gig of RAM is plenty for 32 track sessions. The quad core will stomp the dual core. The new 27" iMac quad looks to be an awesome machine(this from a PC user).

For a PC user, you certainly spend a lot of time in the Mac forums... do I detect a possible defection?

Either way... I agree with what was said. It really depends on how far you intend to take it, and even what else you might be intending to use the Mac for. The new 27" does look pretty tasty, and with a quad in it, it should outperform any Macbook Pro. However, portability obviously comes into play in that sense. Hopefully quadcore macbooks will be showing face sometime soon.

[albee1952]

No defection from me. I'm happy as a clam with my PC. But I also work on a Mac Pro HD rig, owned a Mac Pro quad(so I can offer direct comparison) and have sat thru several PT training sessions and like sharing the knowledge. I have had 2 instructors(at separate times) both say that 4 gig is the "happy spot" for Pro Tools(on either Mac or PC). I agree that the 27" iMac looks killer(and if I had the space for it, I would consider adding it to my toolbox). Now if you can afford tons of RAM, go fot it(hey, I have 6 gig, but only "see" 3.4), but most of us buy what we really need(wallet envy). Plus, I am always learning as much from this side as I do from the PC side(Once you stop learning, you're done for)

[Dism]

Originally Posted by albee1952

(hey, I have 6 gig, but only "see" 3.4)

Oh Windows... there's only one version anyone in their right mind uses, and it doesn't even see the 4GB of "happy spot" RAM. :P

I do agree with the "happy spot" reference, however. When I upgraded my MBP from 2 to 4 the difference was remarkable. As far as I see it, 2GB is bare minimum to run anything new these days, anyway, so you might as well get 4. Although, it is much cheaper to buy the least RAM in the box, and then upgrade it yourself. Even in "box" computers the RAM slots are typically fairly easy to access.

[John_Toolbox]

Spend the extra $$ on the i7 quad. That one will be the most future proof. You can always upgrade RAM later.

[djkiller]

yeah the quad i7 looks nice. when i bought my mac 2 and half years ago i considered all these things too. i ended up going with a mac pro quadcore desktop and updated ram over time now with 7gb on it. just don't buy ram through mac. you can buy 2x2gb sticks for 110 dollars or so through 3rd party sellers. portablity is great but if you're going to make an investment like that i think a desktop would be better for future upgrades and expanding over time. i've even lugged my desktop out to friends houses with a spare smaller monitor for 8hr sessions but would never for 2hrs lol. imac is kind of a middle ground and i think a great bang for your buck with the high quality monitor and one in all deal. imac has a few setbacks that being upgrading can be a chore becasue it's a closed untit, one firewire port so you're going to need a hub for more firewire slots, and no external drive upgrades. i found my mac pro quad for 2,000 when it came out and the mac site was like 2,450 or something like that but no monitor just the desktop, i went ahead and used my 42' lcd ad my monitor on a dvi to hdmi and it's lovely :) but all are good choices..you have portable mbp, imac in the middle and then mac pro for ultimate control and upgrade.

[getz76]

Originally Posted by Dism

Oh Windows... there's only one version anyone in their right mind uses, and it doesn't even see the 4GB of "happy spot" RAM. :P

For Pro Tools? Debatable. It really depends on your needs.

You are out of your head if you are talking in general. I still prefer my Windows Vista desktop for Photoshop, which I spend as much time as Pro Tools. Mac OS X is nice for certain things, but stay away from the Kool-Aid.

[djkiller]

getz67

you are aware you are on a mac forum and not a pc vs. mac. people here are already on macs or made up there mind. no flame wars here :)

[Dism]

Originally Posted by getz76

For Pro Tools? Debatable. It really depends on your needs.

You are out of your head if you are talking in general. I still prefer my Windows Vista desktop for Photoshop, which I spend as much time as Pro Tools. Mac OS X is nice for certain things, but stay away from the Kool-Aid.

So to extinguish the flames... I ain't a Mac fanboi. I love OSX and my Macbook Pro, and my iPod Touch. But mostly because I don't like Windows. I've been using computers and Windows since long before I ever touched a Mac, and I, like most Windows users, had the same biased talks about Macs. Until I actually bought one. My PC has been extremely neglected since I got my MBP, but I do still use it and it's on right now in front of my while I type out this response on my Mac. Macs and PCs are certainly suited for different needs, but my argument has never been "this software works best here, or this software works best there..." it's simply, this software works. Period. As far as I'm concerned, Leopard (still haven't tried SL, yet for obvious reasons) is everything Vista wished it could be and more. But not because Photoshop runs better, or Pro Tools runs better. It's because the whole damn OS run better.

But... as it was said... you are in the Mac forum so we are set in our ways. Just consider that I've only been seriously working with Macs for about a year and a half. Yet, I've been building PC towers since I was 14. My first Pro Tools rig was on XP. Trust me when I say I've seen both sides of the fence.

Either way, it's all Intel these days, so what's there to argue about really. :P

Quad cores are getting cheaper, and are going to get exponentially so within the next 6 months, guaranteed. The new line of processors coming are going to blow i7s away.