[sonicularulus]

is it true that it can not run final cut pro?
some may laugh at me for asking this quesiton because some may feel its a too small of a screen, but i think that the machine has potential to run it, but the apple guys said it cant.
for motion, im pretty sure about it not being able to and for aperture not being able to since they are graphics based applications, which require a good video card to run properly.

[Andy8]

final cut PRO = macbook PRO

[sonicularulus]

i understand that, but i am an editor and already have a Power Mac Desktop..
however, there are instances in my life where i may need to edit short videos on the go...
another 2000 is too much to spend, but for 1500, i can consider it..

if the fact that final cut pro can not run on a macbook would be highly disappointing to me. however, if it does, my view for the macbook would totally change. can someone verify this for me?

[hldan]

Originally Posted by sonicularulus

i understand that, but i am an editor and already have a Power Mac Desktop..
however, there are instances in my life where i may need to edit short videos on the go...
another 2000 is too much to spend, but for 1500, i can consider it..

if the fact that final cut pro can not run on a macbook would be highly disappointing to me. however, if it does, my view for the macbook would totally change. can someone verify this for me?

I went to my local Apple retail store today and asked one of the geniuses about running FCP on the MacBook and he said while it does run it's not pretty. FCP is heavily dependant upon the graphics card and the MacBook's GPU is not made for this.

If you need to do edit short videos on the go and $2k is too much for you to spend then you don't really "Need" to edit videos on the go. Apple has to separate the consumer machines from the Pros. Stop crying, the MacBook is a great machine and offers more than Apple has ever offered in a notebook at even in the $1099.00 model.
If you are using Pro apps use Pro machines and if your job is to be an Editor then buy the right tools.

[sonicularulus]

well, i do agree that the MacBook is a great machine. there is no doubt about that.
I was just really amazed that it couldnt run Final Cut Pro. I didnt realize that it was also demanding on the GPU. All along, i thought that it was dependent mainly on the CPU and the hard drive. but oh well, i think ill still save up and buy one. or maybe the second generation as i heard that the keyboard has a slow response time and is sticky at some points...

[k2director]

It can run Final Cut, and it can run it well. I do a lot of freelance reviews of Mac software, and was just speaking to one of FCP's senior product managers. All of the Studio apps will install fine, and only Motion will largely "not be pretty", due to its heavy reliance on graphics card tech. Final Cut will run smoothly, including real time effects. You may not get absolutely the same level of performance as you would on a MacBook Pro, but the apps will run solidly. Enjoy.

[ecking01]

It runs final cut extremely well. Because of the integrated gpu running motion won't be perfect(it may be down right crappy) but that's to expected.

But FCP, DVD SP, STP all of them it can run amazing, even a core duo mini can.

[breakbeat46]

I cant see why FCP would not run. I have used FCP 4 & 5 on my 12" G4 800Mz ibook w/640mb Ram. Sure its slow and no, I cant do 4+ layered video tracks but it works. Its not fun, but it works.

[saltines17]

Originally Posted by k2director

It can run Final Cut, and it can run it well. I do a lot of freelance reviews of Mac software, and was just speaking to one of FCP's senior product managers. All of the Studio apps will install fine, and only Motion will largely "not be pretty", due to its heavy reliance on graphics card tech. Final Cut will run smoothly, including real time effects. You may not get absolutely the same level of performance as you would on a MacBook Pro, but the apps will run solidly. Enjoy.

I currently have FCP HD 4.5. If I upgrade to whichever version is required for Intel machines, you're certain FCP will run on my Macbook? The reason I'm skeptical is that I didn't realize I need to upgrade FCP to run on an Intel processor, so I installed 4.5; this was successful, but when I try to open the application it doesn't complain to me about the processor but instead says it will not open because I do not have an AGP video card.

[mathew_m]

Originally Posted by hldan

I went to my local Apple retail store today and asked one of the geniuses about running FCP on the MacBook and he said while it does run it's not pretty. FCP is heavily dependant upon the graphics card and the MacBook's GPU is not made for this.

I think "management" is telling the store employees to direct anyone who has questions about running the pro apps towards the 'pro' machines. It's unfortunately Apple's way of still differentiating it's consumer products from the pro. For what it's worth, this "genius" you spoke with either has no understanding of FCP or was lying. I suspect a little of both.

[k2director]

Saltines17: I'm certain. You were having problems with FInal Cut 4.5 because it wasn't a Universal Binary. I have now seen, with my own eyes, the UB version of Final Cut running on an INtel MacBook, and it worked fine. Who knows if some upcoming version will do the same thing, but for now, FCStudio, outside of Motion, handles well on a MacBook.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Andy8

final cut PRO = macbook PRO

Thank you. It is scary how many people don't get that.

[awcopus]

Originally Posted by hldan

I went to my local Apple retail store today and asked one of the geniuses about running FCP on the MacBook and he said while it does run it's not pretty. FCP is heavily dependant upon the graphics card and the MacBook's GPU is not made for this.

If you need to do edit short videos on the go and $2k is too much for you to spend then you don't really "Need" to edit videos on the go. Apple has to separate the consumer machines from the Pros. Stop crying, the MacBook is a great machine and offers more than Apple has ever offered in a notebook at even in the $1099.00 model.
If you are using Pro apps use Pro machines and if your job is to be an Editor then buy the right tools.

"Stop crying..."

Your hostile and snobby attitude are a real breath of fresh air.

The original poster is correct. FCP is primarily driven by the CPU. The GPU comes into play for applying real-time effects, but that probably doesn't matter for cutting on a portable when pulling a sequence together should be the priority.

Part of being a professional is watching your bottom line. A pro can save money by purchasing the MacBook over the Pro version if all he's doing is editing sub 1-hour videos on-the-go. Otherwise, no pros I know use a portable Mac as a primary editing machine.

As a professional editor myself, I only edit on my dual G5 desktop. I have a portable Mac (iBook G3 600MHz) for scripting, logging footage during shoots, emailing/surfing, and enjoying DVDs in hotel rooms/on planes.

Plenty of professional uses for the current MacBook. I actually prefer the feel of its build quality to the MBPs, and the ease with which it can be upgraded is a big plus. The $1299 machine is sweet. That's the one I'm eyeing, but I'm in no rush. For its primary uses, my current iBook is still excellent.

[awcopus]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Thank you. It is scary how many people don't get that.

Do the math, Awkward. Before MacIntel portables, the iBook and the Powerbook were almost identical in their wimpy CPU power. The new MacBook is *significantly* faster than the most powerful PowerBook ever. We're talking a DUAL 2GHz core versus a 1.67GHz G4, and the same total memory capacity (2GB).

A MacBook owner can easily slide in a more powerful and larger HD, and using the Firewire 400 port he has as fast a connection to external storage as an MBP owner (except for owners of the 17" machine, who I guess are ULTRA Pros because they get Firewire800?).

The GPU in the MB is its only major shortcoming, as previous posters have observed. Even with that, I've seen the MB play back multiple video streams in a way that no PowerBook ever could without stuttering and crapping out.

It's scary how many Mac users think it's scary that people on budgets should presume to make use of Macs in the most cost-effective way possible.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by awcopus

Do the math, Awkward. Before MacIntel portables, the iBook and the Powerbook were almost identical in their wimpy CPU power. The new MacBook is *significantly* faster than the most powerful PowerBook ever. We're talking a DUAL 2GHz core versus a 1.67GHz G4, and the same total memory capacity (2GB).

Exactly. it is called marketing. too many Pro's were buying low end products because they are so close to the high end products.

Apple is not a charity, they want to make money.

[awcopus]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Exactly. it is called marketing. too many Pro's were buying low end products because they are so close to the high end products.

Apple is not a charity, they want to make money.

The MacBook represents a more-for-less proposition to any PowerBook owners looking to upgrade. Unless you (1) prefer the MacBookPro's aesthetics or (2) love to play games on a portable Mac or (3) would use your portable Mac regularly for GPU intensive tasks or (4) want a matte screen, there's no compelling reason to get the MBP that I've come up while writing this email.

If you agree with the above and then decide to buy a MBP anyway, technically, you're spending more than you should. And that would be silly, since Apple, as you say, is not a charity.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Andy8

final cut PRO = macbook PRO

It's amazing how many people believe that, despite the fact that the MacBook is has a CPU that is OVER TWICE AS FAST as the fastest G4 ever created, yet people run Final Cut on G4 PowerBooks just fine.

Originally Posted by ecking01

It runs final cut extremely well. Because of the integrated gpu running motion won't be perfect(it may be down right crappy) but that's to expected.

But FCP, DVD SP, STP all of them it can run amazing, even a core duo mini can.

Originally Posted by k2director

It can run Final Cut, and it can run it well. I do a lot of freelance reviews of Mac software, and was just speaking to one of FCP's senior product managers. All of the Studio apps will install fine, and only Motion will largely "not be pretty", due to its heavy reliance on graphics card tech. Final Cut will run smoothly, including real time effects. You may not get absolutely the same level of performance as you would on a MacBook Pro, but the apps will run solidly. Enjoy.

Good to hear. I just love this idea of a dual-core CPU in my MacBook.

I'm kinda (pleasantly) surprised to hear that the real-time effects work OK too though.

[saltines17]

Originally Posted by k2director

Saltines17: I'm certain. You were having problems with FInal Cut 4.5 because it wasn't a Universal Binary. I have now seen, with my own eyes, the UB version of Final Cut running on an INtel MacBook, and it worked fine. Who knows if some upcoming version will do the same thing, but for now, FCStudio, outside of Motion, handles well on a MacBook.

Thanks!

[Star-Fire]

I ran FCP on a 500MHZ G4 TiBook and had real time effects, it was a bit slow but ram so I don't see how it cannot run on the MB fine. I've tested Aperture and it's fine, a few things are a little slow, but to me Aperture is slow overall.

I sold my MBP for the MB since I don't do any gamming on my laptop and everything seems just as fast as the MBP (aka Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.) So don't feel like you have to by the Pro for Pro apps. The main differance is 3D and a larger screen, same reason why a lot of "Pros" bought G4 iBooks almost as fast as the Powerbooks.

[Eug Wanker]

The only thing on the MacBook (besides the GPU) that I think may hold some pros back is the glossy screen. If you're under harsh lighting a lot, the glossy screen can be very problematic.

[Jawbone54]

What about Final Cut Express? Do you guys think there is a significant difference?

[hadocon]

I have been using FCP since version one for creating content FOR BROADCAST on machines as lowly as a G3 300 - granted it was not the speediest of experiences, BUT IT WORKED for reagular cutting - it could do all effects and transitions, but you had to wait. iNTEL native FCP on a MB will be just absolutely fine - trust me. Some effects may not render in realtime, but who cares? As a semi pro in the field of broadcast television (did some sh1t for the CBC) I can tell you that there is no need to worry

Clearly the ppl that think that FCP will only run on Pro models are armchair editors/producers.

[breakbeat46]

Macbook FCP benchmarks

http://www.creativemac.com/articles/...e.jsp?id=43717

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by breakbeat46

Macbook FCP benchmarks

http://www.creativemac.com/articles/...e.jsp?id=43717

Yep. The MacBook is definitely unusable by pros. It's only as fast as (or faster than) a dual G5 2.0 Power Mac in those Final Cut and Compressor tests.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I'm kinda (pleasantly) surprised to hear that the real-time effects work OK too though.

Come to think of it, aren't the Final Cut real-time effects all vector? If so, the Core Duo should do as well if not better than the PowerBooks at real-time effects in Final Cut, cuz the GPU doesn't matter here (unlike with Motion).

[Star-Fire]

Wow! That is impressive! Macbook seems like a real winner.