Intel v Mac

Maccattack

I notice that you can buy a Mac with an intel chip.

Are these more gooder? whats the differences?

Ill be buying a Mac for music production so which is best for that?

po0k

You don't have a choice and won't know nor notice the difference.
It's still OSX.

Macs should still be running Alpha.

pa

SyxPak wrote:

Macs should still be running Alpha.

Macs never used Alpha processors.

Rollo Tamasi

The move to Intel is brilliant because it has introduced Universial Libaries onto the Mac. This means that running native Windows based applications isn't going to be too much hassel, both now and in the near future. You can install XP/Vista on Intel Macs too. As either a whole or boot system.

K.O.Kiki

Rollo Tamasi wrote:

The move to Intel is brilliant because it has introduced Universial Libaries onto the Mac. This means that running native Windows based applications isn't going to be too much hassel, both now and in the near future. You can install XP/Vista on Intel Macs too. As either a whole or boot system.

What's a Universal Library??

BostonB

Maccattack wrote:

I notice that you can buy a Mac with an intel chip.

Are these more gooder? whats the differences?

Ill be buying a Mac for music production so which is best for that?

Well before Apple used intel, intel were badder. But now Apple are using intel they are gooder. Does it really matter? Its whats on the outside that counts.

Rollo Tamasi

K.O.Kiki wrote:

What's a Universal Library??

It just means that installers for Windows applicaitons can be made into Mac installers easier now.

pa

Rollo Tamasi wrote:

It just means that installers for Windows applicaitons can be made into Mac installers easier now.

I believe some people have gotten the term "Universal Library" confused with "Universal Binary", which was introduced alongside Intel Macs and has nothing whatsoever to do with Windows applications.

A Universal Binary is an OS X application that runs natively on both Intel and PowerPC-based Macs. It doesn't run at all on Windows. The move to Intel processors has meant improved Windows compatibility on Macs in 2 ways:

- Macs are, in hardware terms, now indistinguishable from PCs. So Windows will install on them like any other PC.
- Intel-based PCs can be virtualised from within OS X, which allows any Intel-targeted OS to be run within the virtual machine.

Neither of these have anything to do with Universal Binaries, and Windows applications are still no closer to running natively on OS X than before.

babypink

*pa hits the nail on the head

hell....i dont want windoze apps on my mac....anyhoodles....while i mourn the loss of PPC, IBM/Freescale's product pipeline simply couldn't compete with the multi-core hawt of the present macs, especially the 4-core Apple-exclusive chips sitting in the MacPro at the minute!

Back to the OP's question: depends really what your budget is......there's nothing stopping you running a studio on a MacBook Pro for example. But you may want to opt for the desktop solution (more ram and addon options help here). Either way Apples of all forms traditionally have very low latency and high quality audio hardware (good for music production), haven't heard much to the contrary for Intel Macs.

pa

babypink wrote:

IBM/Freescale's product pipeline simply couldn't compete with the multi-core hawt of the present macs, especially the 4-core Apple-exclusive chips sitting in the MacPro at the minute!

Those chips are not Apple-exclusive, and Apple are not the first OEM to offer them. Dell have been selling systems with those chips since they were launched.

K.O.Kiki

pa wrote:

Those chips are not Apple-exclusive, and Apple are not the first OEM to offer them. Dell have been selling systems with those chips since they were launched.

True, but they look kinda sh*te, don't they?

babypink

ahem..

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31484/135/

particularly the following:
"But what makes this new special is the fact that it ships with quad-cores that aren’t listed on Intel’s price sheet or on its website."

and

"Intel spokesperson Dan Snyder told TG Daily that the 3.0 GHz model is available in limited production at this time an “Apple has chosen to adopt it."

or how about http://www.eweek.com/article2/0%2C1759%2C2111258%2C00.asp

again "limited production"....

i.e. Apple has them before anyone else.......oh and Dell Precision 690 workstations(their best) top out with 2.66 GHz Quad core processors http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/precn_690?c=ie&l=en&s=pad&~section=specs#tabtop

granted, Dell do sell systems with quad core processors......but not at 3 GHz they don't!

pa

babypink wrote:

ahem..

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31484/135/

particularly the following:
"But what makes this new special is the fact that it ships with quad-cores that aren’t listed on Intel’s price sheet or on its website."

and

"Intel spokesperson Dan Snyder told TG Daily that the 3.0 GHz model is available in limited production at this time an “Apple has chosen to adopt it."

Oh, ok, I was referring to the quad-core line itself, I didn't realise the 3.0GHz model were only being used by Apple at the moment. My apologies.

BostonB

pa wrote:

Oh, ok, I was referring to the quad-core line itself, I didn't realise the 3.0GHz model were only being used by Apple at the moment. My apologies.

Its only a matter of time before everyone has them.
http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/landingpages/qx6800/default.asp