Mac Studio

[ghettosynth]

...

[PAK]

I see how my quote was misleading, I was only referencing your point on cost. I didn't know about Apple falsely reporting their SSD performance numbers.

Yep.. no worries.. had zero issue with your post. More I realised the writing data issue is "one of those things" which doesn't seem to be widely known about right now, so nobody probably got the reference..

I suppose the locals who were claiming that Apple never lies about performance metrics might want to take a minute to peruse the news.

Apple might claim reasons of their own for doing it that way, but the bottom line is it puts their desktop users at much greater risk, of data loss, when experiencing a power outage etc. Maybe part of the reason it wasn't a huge issue is most of their users are either iOS based or on laptops.. IE they have a battery.. where it can usually warn the system before it gives out

[jamcat]

That the systems won't start without a functioning crypto signed Apple SSD means that you have a brick when that SSD dies. Not so with older macs, you could still start them from an external.

I didn't know about that, that's bad news indeed. It's useful to have multiple OS installations; with an old iMac I relied on booting from an external drive.

You can boot from an external hard drive. It just needs to be Thunderbolt 3. I think you should also be able to boot from an SD card.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01 ... rnal-drive

It does not need to be Thunderbolt at all and that isn't what I said. You can boot an M1 Mac from a USB drive, that is what I'm doing currently and I'm using a bog cheap drive caddy to do it. You do need to format the drive from USB-A (or did, that may have changed), but once formatted, you can use USB-C to boot. However, you can only boot from an external drive as long as your internal drive is functioning. Should your internal drive die, you will not be able to boot from an external.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-bad-i ... e-problem/

" The M1 boot process requires a working SSD to boot macOS. The SSD contains a Signed System Volume that is cryptographically sealed by Apple. No seal, no bootable System.

So if the internal drive on your M1 Mac fails completely, even an external bootable drive won't boot. Yep, your Mac is bricked."

I was just clarifying for chagzuki that booting into another OS installation is still possible.

You're right, it doesn't need to be Thunderbolt 3, but those are apparently the only external drives that consistently work, so it's better to just go with one from the start instead of gamble.

Also, you should be able to boot into Linux (once it's fully ported) without a signed SSD. This is a limitation imposed by Mac OS 12, not the hardware, unless I'm mistaken.

[ghettosynth]

...

[jamcat]

You're right, it doesn't need to be Thunderbolt 3, but those are apparently the only external drives that consistently work, so it's better to just go with one from the start instead of gamble.

Thunderbolt enclosures and drives are still much more expensive and you have to take reports of not working with a grain of salt. I didn't have any difficulty whatsoever with any of the choices that I had on hand.

Also, you should be able to boot into Linux (once it's fully ported) without a signed SSD. This is a limitation imposed by Mac OS 12, not the hardware, unless I'm mistaken.

Even if true, this is not a consolation for most mac users.

Well if your whole damn integrated NVMe dies, then you need send it in to Apple for a repair, not jerry-rig it with an external hard drive. That's what most Mac users would do. But most Mac users will never experience a dead NVMe in the first place.

[Synth Master Jedi]

Even if it uses 140W under load, then so what

I said "upwards" - the total system load, for an M1 Ultra, could be far north of that - Potentially over 300W. We'll see..

Whilst that's still better than "equivalent performance" Intel / Nvidia, the point is there's no physics miracle, and it's still going to be a fair amount of energy usage. Apple paid to be head of the 5nm manufacturing queue with TSMC, and the power usage is going to come down -significantly- for other companies when they also manage to move to 5nm..

because when you compare that to the equivalent, they're using literally hundreds of watts more, because the M1 Ultra includes the GPU.

Yep, but I didn't say otherwise! Your average DAW user likely isn't going to be hammering the graphics though. They just want something which can drive their display without clicks and pops. In that sense, being required to pay for an expensive GPU solution, they likely don't need, perhaps isn't the best use of their resources..

How much watts is the intel chip + a beefy GPU going use? over 500 watts

Lots of variables there. The point wasn't that Intel (or AMD for that matter) doesn't use more power. I even said as much in my post It's that these Apple parts can still draw fair amounts of power themselves..

Power usage is becoming a major issue for many. Energy costs, in the UK, are set to more than double by the end of the year, so that an average household is paying £2,900 (over US $3,800). It's enough of a difference that the cost should be factored in to purchases like these, especially if the present situation lasts (as some want it to - you will own nothing and be happy). This may well favour Apple in that case btw, especially if you plan to use the device over the next 5-10 years.

I agree that the machines are very capable for video and some configs are overkill for most musicians, which is why I settled on the Max and not the Ultra. Even the Max is more than I would need, GPU-wise.

Regarding energy usage, it seems that if energy cost is a concern for anybody, then that would make a good case for these Apple machines, if somebody needs both power and low energy usage.

And if somebody is really,, really concerned with energy costs, then I suppose they can just get a Mac Mini and not worry too much about it.

[Synth Master Jedi]

I'm still thinking about which config I'm going to get and I've been looking at the cost of external options, such as external thunderbolt storage etc., and that stuff isn't cheap.

I'm going to price out how much the external options will cost and compare that to how much it'll cost to go with the internal Apple SSD option and then decide which direction I will go in.

[jamcat]

I'm still thinking about which config I'm going to get and I've been looking at the cost of external options, such as external thunderbolt storage etc., and that stuff isn't cheap.

I'm going to price out how much the external options will cost and compare that to how much it'll cost to go with the internal Apple SSD option and then decide which direction I will go in.

How much storage space are you looking to get?
Do you have large sample libraries?

I have a 1TB Mac Pro, and I'm only using 150 GB of it. But I use mostly physically modeled instruments and haven't loaded any Kontakt or SampleTank libraries yet.

[ghettosynth]

...

[ghettosynth]

I'm still thinking about which config I'm going to get and I've been looking at the cost of external options, such as external thunderbolt storage etc., and that stuff isn't cheap.

I'm going to price out how much the external options will cost and compare that to how much it'll cost to go with the internal Apple SSD option and then decide which direction I will go in.

Yeah, external is a pain as well. Personally I think that the 2TB is at the sweet spot. Well, sweet if you like a certain amount of pain.

[Synth Master Jedi]

I'm still thinking about which config I'm going to get and I've been looking at the cost of external options, such as external thunderbolt storage etc., and that stuff isn't cheap.

I'm going to price out how much the external options will cost and compare that to how much it'll cost to go with the internal Apple SSD option and then decide which direction I will go in.

How much storage space are you looking to get?
Do you have large sample libraries?

I have a 1TB Mac Pro, and I'm only using 150 GB of it. But I use mostly physically modeled instruments and haven't loaded any Kontakt or SampleTank libraries yet.

I don't do any film music or anything like that which requires huge libraries, but I do have Kontakt and various libraries that I use sometimes. I also have Sampletank and similar other things that take up some space.

Most of my instrumentation comes from various synth plugins and not samples.

Just looking at my current machine, I have about 8 TB of space on it, spread out through different drives, both SSD and spinning drives. That is not all for music and I will most likely settle for the 1 TB or 2 TB Apple Studio model, and then just get an enclosure that I can put a few of my existing drives in.

Even though my current machine has 8 TB of drive space, my main OS drive is only 256 GB, so I am used to managing drive space and always have a good handle of where I install various apps and sounds etc.

[Synth Master Jedi]

I'm still thinking about which config I'm going to get and I've been looking at the cost of external options, such as external thunderbolt storage etc., and that stuff isn't cheap.

I'm going to price out how much the external options will cost and compare that to how much it'll cost to go with the internal Apple SSD option and then decide which direction I will go in.

Yeah, external is a pain as well. Personally I think that the 2TB is at the sweet spot. Well, sweet if you like a certain amount of pain.

Yeah and a bit slower too I think, depending upon what kind of external set up or drive somebody is using.

We apparently came to the same conclusion, because you think that 2 TB is the sweet spot and I am considering either the 1 TB or 2TB, and that will be right for me, space wise and price wise.

[superscan]

Well if your whole damn integrated NVMe dies, then you need send it in to Apple for a repair, not jerry-rig it with an external hard drive. That's what most Mac users would do. But most Mac users will never experience a dead NVMe in the first place.

Yes, thank you for stating the obvious. I'll restate it for you. You no longer have the option with Macs to use an external drive to continue running your system should your internal drive die. You will now have to send it in for a likely expensive repair, which, since you're still using an old system, may not be affordable for you.

I'm not looking to argue with you. You can't change this fact, it's a fact. New Macs are less reparable and upgradeable than old macs and if you're concerned about this, 1) there isn't much that you can do about it and 2) any workaround will cost you quite a bit of money.

One option is new variant of AppleCare+ for 59.99/year until cancelled. Small insurance policy to keep older machines under support. For me 360 for 6 years on a 4-6k machine is well worth it.

[pdxindy]

I'm not looking to argue with you. You can't change this fact, it's a fact. New Macs are less reparable and upgradeable than old macs and if you're concerned about this, 1) there isn't much that you can do about it and 2) any workaround will cost you quite a bit of money.

One option is new variant of AppleCare+ for 59.99/year until cancelled. Small insurance policy to keep older machines under support. For me 360 for 6 years on a 4-6k machine is well worth it.

Yup... It works great! Their support is excellent!

[ghettosynth]

...