Which machine for FCP Studio?

I don't even have a Mac yet but I want to use FCP and the software bundled with the Studio suite. I have been told that I could get by with a mini, but at the Apple store they told me I would need to get the Mac Pro desktop or the MacBook Pro to run the software. I figure they WOULD tell me that at the retail shop, but I don't know whether to believe them or not.

I would love some advice before spending my hard earned dollars. I know very little about the hardware and whatever bells and whistles come with each different model.

Thanks!

jamie

I use FCP on a MacBook (non-Pro), and it works fine. I feel the small degredation in performance is worth the several hundred dollars I saved. Many (most) here will disagree, for a variety of reasons.

There was a response to a post much like this one a few weeks back, with some very well reasoned arguments aginst getting a non-Pro machine, as well as an apple history lesson. It's worth a read if you are considering getting an underpowered computer to run the studio suite.
[www.lafcpug.org]

Essentially, most of the pro apps will run fine, but motion will be a dog, because of the graphics card requirements.

If you're cutting commercials for GM or Ford, I'd consider getting a Pro. If you're cutting your kid's school play, I wouldn't worry about the performance issues, as they won't be a problem. What lies inbetween is the gray area.

Hello, Jamie.
I really recommend reading the replies Mike suggests. I wrote what he calls an history lesson but there are a lot of reasons for and against, there.

Basically, when Apple says they don't recommend using a Mac Mini or MacBook for pro apps you could read: we're about to raise the system requirements for Final Cut Studio in the next version. Don't tell us we didn't warn you
That's what they happened time after time. When a a consumer laptop works with the latest version of Final Cut it's because the machine is too new for Apple to prevent it.

This may seem cynical. But remember FCP 3 included scripts that artificially upgraded or downgraded performance according to how expensive or recent your computer was, rather than its' actual horsepower.

Then, there's this trend towards taking advantage of the graphics processor in visual applications. Problem is, the Mac Mini and MacBook don't have a proper graphics card. They have a really weak integrated chip that shares the main RAM. Not a big deal with Final Cut Pro today, but it surely will be soon. Motion, and to a lesser degree DVD Studio Pro, are making a lot of use of that today. Adobe After Effects and 3d applications are also making much more use of that than they used to.

Another things: both the MacBook and MacBook Pro have only one Firewire port. Really inadequate for heavy Firewire I/O, since you would have to daisy chain your DV/HDV/DVCPRO HD device with your external hard drive (and you will want an external hard drive at some point). The difference is the MacBook Pro has an ExpressCard/34 slot (sort of a Mini PCI Express) that allows you to avoid this by cheaply adding Firewire 400/800, ESATA and, read this, even SDI/HD SDI in the future. That's really a difference in options. Of course the screen real state on the MacBook Pro is much nicer for pro applications, but that's more of a subjective choice: functionality versus size.

Bottom line: Apple's consumer computers run FCS quite well (some applications better than others), but that may change in the next versions of each app in suite. Make no mistake. Apple software and hardware work in a beautiful way. It's just not worth it saving a few $$$ by running FCS on a computer they don't want you to. You may regret it sooner or later.

Either a MacBook Pro 17" or a MacPro 2.66 Ghz tower are the best. In my humble opinion, the MacPro is a better value because it is EXPANDABLE! If you really want a portable computer then the MacBook Pro is your ticket, but not nearly as expandable.

That said: there are external Serial ATA Raid solutions that can attach to your MacBook Pro to give it the needed capacity and speed to satisfy the FC Studio requirements.

Either way to get a usable computer, you start at the computer level at $2800 for the MBP or about $3500 for a MacPro with 23" monitor, which you will eventially you will need to attach to the MBP for screen real estate.

$2800 for the MacBook Pro, John?
I completely respect your opinion. But we want to encourage Jamie, don't we?
Of course, tastes are tastes, but the 17" MBP is not only much more expensive. The main problem, it's only portable in the sense of going from work desk to home desk with it in a car, not "porting" it. I wouldn't want to go around with one, and a lot of friends who got one later regreted it for this reason.
The cheapest 15" is about $2000 and, believe me, its a speed daemon with FCS and almost everything else. The expendabilty is not bad at all, since (unlike consumer computers) it does have what essentially is an Intel supported version of PCI Express in a small factor, with a bandwidth of 1.5 Gb/s (twice that of Firewire 800!). In a few months, there will be all kind of devices in that form, again since is the new golden standard for laptop expansion. Including SD/HD IO cards, as I said.
Did I say $2000? If that burns a hole in your pocket, Apple Specials section and some dealers like Small Dog have demo/refurbished/open box MBPs (the two month old ones) going for quite less than that.

I went to find that earlier thread on the topic and all the info has been helpful. Thanks to all of you for your time and advice! Hopefully I will be back on this forum in the near future with questions about using the software (but I do promise to think and try to find the answers myself before harrassing you who have the experience and know-how).

Jamie

It seems that all the suggestions about which would be a proper machine drifts towards laptops. What about desktops? If a mini won't do, what about an Imac? Are they running the new intel chips yet? When might a tower with intel chips come out? I am trying to position my system to move up to an intel tower when they come out and after you "bleeding edge" people work out the bugs. Thanx Barry

An iMac is a Mac Mini with a built-in monitor and a better graphics card. Don't get me wrong. The display is gorgeous and the graphics card... well, you can think about it like insurance: you make sure you will be able to run the next versions of FCS for some time.
However, this is just me, let's see it this way: The iMac is very similar to a MacBook Pro in terms of expansion, even a bit less (no Expresscard or PCI Express, probably no two monitor desktop spanning). But, the MacBook Pro may be worth the limited expandability... it compensates with portability, if you want to take it everywhere. The iMac is there on your desktop, so there's no practical advantage in exchanged for the limitations. It's still worth noting that it's faster than a Dual G5, not bad at all.
The new Intel towers just came out. They are called MacPro and they are awesome in terms of power and expansion possibilities. Up to 3.0 Ghz Quad Core, with 4 drive bays that can even be five or six given that it has extra SATA connectors inside. As always, the ultimate Mac.

Adolfo Rozenfeld
Buenos Aires - Argentina
www.adolforozenfeld.com

Thanx Adolfo, That was exactly the answer I was looking for. Barry