Help Needed - New to Mac world

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by LennDel, Jan 6, 2013.

  1. LennDel macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2013
    #1
    Hey guys... I am new to the Mac world and I'm in the market for a MacBook Pro. I will be using it solely for digital music and running my digital DJ software on it.

    Quick question, which of these 2 models will be better suited for my needs? I don't think retina would be necessary, but I do want it! Main thing I want to know is the difference between the flash and Serial ATA. Will one be faster than the other? Will one hold more songs than the other? How much more?


    MacBook Pro 2.6GHz Quad-core Intel i7 with Retina Display
    8GB of 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
    512GB Flash Storage

    vs ($130 price difference)

    MacBook Pro 2.7GHz Quad-core Intel i7
    8GB (2 x 4GB) of 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM
    1TB Serial ATA @ 5400 rpm

    Thanks guys!
     
  2. grapes911 Moderator emeritus

    grapes911

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Location:
    Citizens Bank Park
    #2
    Flash drives are a bit faster but at 512 GB it's half the size if the 1 TB drive. For me personally, I couldn't see purchasing a computer without a flash storage. You probably don't need it but I really like them.

    Either computer will work just fine for your needs.
     
  3. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #3
    Both will do fine, you might not even need the maxed out CPU and can happily live with base CPU (2.3GHz or so).
    Serial ATA is an interface for internal storage drives like an SSD or HDD or optical disk drive (ODD).
    HDDs and SSDs and ODDs nowadays use Serial ATA as interface to be connected to a computer internally.
    The cMBP (non Retina MBP - classic MBP) uses a standard platter based HDD, which is slower than a a flash memory based SSD, be it reading or writing to it or seeking for files.

    What is a Hard Disk Drive (HDD)? - measured in Bytes (B), MegaBytes (MB), GigaBytes (GB) and TeraBytes (TB)
    What Is a Solid State Drive (SSD)?
    Another article about SSD technology

    The MacBook Pro with Retina Display with its flash memory based storage, but you can upgrade any cMBP with an SSD for much less money nowadays than what Apple wants for 256 GB or 512 GB of SSD.

    Seeing that the MacBook Pro with Retina Display has 512 GB of storage and the cMBP has 1 TB of storage, the cMBP will hold double the number of songs, as 1 TB is roughly twice as much as 512 GB.
    See link under "What is a Hard Disk Drive" to learn more about that.

    MacBook, MacBook Pro: Replacing the Hard Disk Drive, transferring data to the new HDD

    the guide includes:
    • 0. Identify your MacBook or MacBook Pro
    • 1. Getting a new HDD
    • 2. Guides to replace the internal HDD with a newer one
    • 3. Transferring data from the old HDD to the new HDD
    • 4. Using the optical disk drive (ODD) slot for placing an SSD or HDD inside the MB/P (OPTIBAY)


    To learn more about Mac OS X: Helpful Information for Any Mac User by GGJstudios
     
  4. mobilehaathi macrumors G3

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #4
    I'd go for the retina MBP with SSD. Ever since getting a MBP with an SSD I've been spoiled. I also much prefer the greater screen real estate I can get out of the retina display.

    For your needs, both are more than grand. Obviously 1TB holds more music than 512GB.
     
  5. chrisrosemusic1 macrumors 6502a

    chrisrosemusic1

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Location:
    Northamptonshire, England
    #5
    What DJ software are you going to use?

    I've got a 2011 i7 13" and it runs everything I need without even maxing my CPU out.

    The MBP SATA drives are 5400rpm and it can be frustratingly slow to reboot or open applications.

    If you can get away with the 512 flash drive (obviously, plugins, samples, DAW's etc allowing) then I'd definitely go with the rMBP. And the lesser weight/form factor will definitely benefit you if you're playing gigs and out on the road cos that 15" MBP is quite a sizeable computer.

    ----------

    Just to add to your decision - search 'Nifty Drive' and buy one of those for the rMBP cos you can then whack 64gb of SD storage on the side for other files.
     
  6. LennDel thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2013
    #6
    Thanks a lot for everybody's quick responses...

    Chrisrosemusic1, I will be using Seraton Itch. I like the 1tb of space compared to the 512gb but based on what you guys are saying, the rMBP will be the better choice.

    Roughly, do you guys know how many songs 512gb could hold?
     
  7. chrisrosemusic1 macrumors 6502a

    chrisrosemusic1

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Location:
    Northamptonshire, England
    #7
    If you use 320kbps MP3's then that's about 1 per 10mb (based on roughly 6min tracks) then you'll hold 51000 approx. If you're using raw WAV files then closer to 10000. All depends on what you use and what codec they are.

    Remember you could always store less frequently used tracks on an external drive for very little extra money - especially as the new Macs are USB 3.0 :D
     
  8. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #8
    That depends on the format they are in. If the are compressed and 1 minute of song takes roughly 2 MB (if compressed with a high data rate) and one song is about 4 minutes ling in average, 512 GB can hold 65,536 songs, minus 15,000 songs for having some storage for the OS and applications and other user data.
    If you have uncompressed songs (WAV or AIFF), then one four minute song should take a bit less than 70 MB, thus almost 7,500 songs will fit on 512 GB of storage, again, minus 500 songs to have some capacity for OS and applications and other user data.

    Also know, that uncompressed and compressed music do not have that a big of a data rate (throughput of bytes per second), that even an external USB 2.0 HDD would suffice to hold many, many songs.
     
  9. grapes911 Moderator emeritus

    grapes911

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Location:
    Citizens Bank Park
    #9
    Using my very nonscientific method, I looked at 10 of my songs. They varied from 4 MB to 12 MB. Using 10 MB as an average (which is probably larger than average). Let's say 30 GB for programs and OS. That leaves you with enough space for 25,977 songs.

    Really you need to look at your own songs and make this determination.
     
  10. LennDel thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2013
    #10
    Again, thanks for your quick responses.. I guess I got some homework to do...

    That Nifty MiniDrive looks awesome. Do you own one? I will definitely be buying one of those once they offer them for sale.
     
  11. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #11
    Good point, but that's only the *finished* soundfile/song. When making (re)mixes, or your own songs, those files eat up TONS of space.
     
  12. LennDel thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2013
    #12
    Hey guys, sorry to open this back up. Just looking for suggestions that I am currently googling and finding only people using photo/video programs...

    1) rMBP 8gb vs 16gb...

    I will be using the machine for DJing purposes (downloading/storing tons of songs, using certain types of music programs to cut/edit songs, most importantly running the DJ software on nights when I am playing). Now when I have the DJ software open, it'll most likely be just that and nothing else, maybe itunes. Not really into making my own music YET, could be coming a few years down the road tho...

    2) 2.7GHz vs 2.6GHz - same reasoning.

    Would be nice to save a few 100s of dollars, but if I would need these upgrades, then I guess I would need them. Any suggestions?
     
  13. Ledgem macrumors 65816

    Ledgem

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hawaii, USA
    #13
    As far as I know, DJ software doesn't take up a ton of memory. Audio editing programs should take up a bit more. I haven't done much sound editing so I would defer to any audio pros, but usually the huge amounts of RAM are associated with image and video editing, not sound editing. I'd be willing to bet that 8 GB would be sufficient. Of course, if you can afford it, more is always better.

    I can guarantee that you will not notice a difference with these speeds. If you were doing processor-intensive work day in and day out (video editing, 3D rendering), then you might notice a difference between the two. For audio and normal usage, though, that doesn't apply.
     
  14. LennDel thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2013
    #14
    Thanks a lot, I will def go with the 2.6GHz then. Seemed like a pretty costly upgrade ($225) going from 2.6 to 2.7 anyway... I am still up in the air about the 16GB ram. Leaning more towards upgrading, just to have it down the road. Definitely planning on having this for years...
     
  15. akdj macrumors 65816

    akdj

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #15
    Definitely get 16GB of RAM.

    You don't even need the 2.6--upgrade the 2.3's storage instead:)


    We use Serato Scratch and Traktor Pro. Both flat fly on these rMBPs. The memory upgrade though ensures future viability for OS and application updates. As well, with the rMBP, you can't 'add' the RAM after you buy.

    J
     
  16. LennDel thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2013
    #16
    Ends up being about the same price when I upgrade to 16gb and 768 flash...
     
  17. grapes911 Moderator emeritus

    grapes911

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Location:
    Citizens Bank Park
    #17
    8 GB of RAM will be more than enough. While I'd recommend 8 GB for future proofing, 4 would be plenty for your purposes. I can't imagine you'll see a difference in the processor speeds either.
     

Share This Page