Ok since I am new to Mac except for back in 96 when I came off the road as a house sound engineer to oversee building a state of the art studio in TN. This was my first chance at useing a computer and we choose at the time to go with Mac as PC was not even in the running for automated soundboards. I did buy My first PC around the same time being told it would be easyier to use and I had finally discovered the Net. Note there really was no need for a computer on the road or so i told my self. Now after using PCs for 10 years I want to go back over to Mac,s because I have switched all my camera gear over to DSLR and from all reports the MACs are better at editing pictures then PCs along with the use of MACs for editing audio and video. Can anyone tell me how much differance using a powerbook pro over a Pc really is. I have been out of the studio for 7 years now and have been useing PCs but from reading the forum here and looking around it would seem that a computer with the speed of the MAC that will also run all the software I have for the PC if i could run both Mac for the heavy stuff and add Bootcamp to it and run all the Pc software I would be ahead and slowly move away from the curse of microsoft slowly all togeather. Does this seem like an idea?

I am sorry but...

"Yes, we ALL want to have a laptop that will last 12 hours while using every component in the computer at 100 percent capacity, but you know what? It ain't gonna happen any time soon. While there are no official numbers yet as to the new PowerBook's battery life, it is completely safe to assume that it will be on par with other comparable PC laptops. If you have a problem with the battery life of the new PowerBook you should not be complaining to Apple you should be complaining to Intel for making chips too power hungry, and to the LCD backlight manufacturers for making the backlights too power hungry, and to the hard drive manufacturers for making hard drives too power hungry, etc..."

No, no complaining to Intel. Apple has a hand in this also. They make design choices, and they are not giving the machine the choice to have a better battery option. It could make the machine bigger/whatever, but also far more portable.

Lenovo has thinkpads that in combination with the internal slim battery + 9 cell battery they give you 8 hours (I am talking also about workstation class Radeons- the Fire Gl 5250 which is the ATI X1700 mobility chip).

I am still heavily considering the MBP but I really can't get past the battery life when I am used to 4 hours on my previous older laptop (Toshiba).

- Raist

Honestly, there's no real difference as far as editing photos and doing audio and video work on a Mac compared to a PC. For the most part all the major software is cross platform—though FinalCut Pro is quickly becoming a standard for Video and it's Mac only, and Logic is a fairly big Mac only Audio suite.

Where the Mac really shines is in it's reliability and ease of use. Macs rarely crash and once you figure out where everything is it's kind of hard to go back to using Windows.

If you need a new computer and want to get away from Microsoft the new Intel Macs are great because you're not locked into just using a Mac now that you can install Windows on them for software that is Windows only.

So, yes, it does seem like a good idea.

Well that sounds good I guess I will start looking for a 15.4 in. notebook.

Heh ok so I havent read this thread in a while. Just to comment I prefer Macs for my audio work for three or four reasons..

OUT OF THE BOX:
Macs are better set up for low latency audio work
Macs are more secure/stable
Most(Meaning All Recent macs with a 6 Pin FW400 or 9Pin FW800) macs can power an interface themselves, making the notebooks prefereable for me for my field work that I dont use my Marantz on, and for basic portable studio. The number of PC laptops with this feature I could probably count on one hand, and strangely Samsung would be the only one I can come up with off the top of my head. SOS just did an article on this based partially I believe off the thread I linked earlier as all the points get covered there as well and it seems to be a hot topic.
Build quality in general I find to be better on Macs than PC laptops.

Now note that of course you can set up a windows machine to be equivalent to the above(With the possible exception of the powered firewire, depends on the card, see SOS, and the build quality depends on the vendor of course) however the fact I dont have to do anything to it out of the box makes macs mroe preferable to me.

Add that on top of many of the tools I use on Linux carry over well into the Mac world(Jack and Ardour being the primary) allowing me to switch my projects between my PB and my Linux Workstation for my serious work. I also tend to use my Mac for day to day stuff as well, which it carries these along side of some minor work projects well, even doing things like Video Editing and 3D modeling in blender with no problem.

Also I can(And have) trust the mac to run a show off of, even given all of the above statements, I cant trust a windows machine to do so without serious modification and disabling a LOT of things to prevent it from screwing up.

Just for the record, one person's opinion. Keep in mind I use linux for my Workstation for my more serious audio work, the mac is my day to day machine.

Seablade

And yes I know those posts were a month old, just posting to clarify on Kakaze's post. There will of course be those that prefer Windows to Mac.

Aero is not limited only to Ultimate, unless they changed their specifications yet again.

Either way the GMA950 graphics chip is currently on the supported hardware list for Aero.

From dailytech.com:
To be qualified as a Vista Premium Ready PC, a 1GHz x86 or x86-64 processor is required along with at least 1GB of RAM. In order to run the Aero Glass user interface in all its glory, you'll need a DirectX 9-class graphics card which supports the Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM). Microsoft goes further and stipulates these requirements for running Aero Glass on Vista:
Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
32 bits per pixel
64 MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor less than 1,310,720 pixels
128 MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor at resolutions from 1,310,720 to 2,304,000 pixels
256 MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor at resolutions higher than 2,304,000 pixels
Meets graphics memory bandwidth requirements, as assessed by Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor running on Windows XP

And right now Vista requires a kludge to get it to install.

Well...I checked the detailed specs for the macbook: http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html and I calculated the total max resolution of the monitor to be 2,280,000 pixels (1920 x 1200 pixels).

According to the dailytech.com article...this would require 128MB right? Is it that since the macbook has the 64MB version I can use aero till 1,310,720 pixels and above that aero will not be available? Or do I need a 128MB card to be able to use aero at all at that resol.? It would then seem that since macbook has a 64MB card it will not support aero. Could you plz confirm this? Thanks.

Parichay

1920x1200 is for an external monitor. The resolution of the actual LCD is 1280x800 which is 1024000 pixels.

Thanks

Np