Mac Pro for Logic Studio...advice?

Hi Folks,
I am contemplating the purchase of a Mac Pro specifically for running Logic Studio, and would like to know what significance multiple processors have on its performance.
Money is tight so I am considering the single processor option, based on the fact that in the past most applications did not make much use of the second processor. However I am a recent defector from Digital Performer and have no idea what the story is with the latest version of Logic.
My needs are fairly humble, not doing anything that really requires massive amounts of tracks. However I don't want to be filled with regret later.
I am contemplating the base model with one processor and then adding an additional 8GB of ram and 2 x 1 terrabyte drives. Would run the system and apps from the 320GB drive, and partition the first 1TB drive with a recording partition and a storage partition. I would use the second 1TB drive for backups.
Would appreciate some feedback from more experienced users....
Thanks!!!!

i opted for the 8-core because logic can use them. but i am also using sample libraries a lot, so i needed decent horsepower. however, i feel that this 8-core mac pro has the potential to last a good while. especially when ssd drives drop in price later this year and will make sample streaming and system operations a breeze.

Similar Messages

Which new Mac Pro for Logic Studio?

Hi everyone,
I'm on the verge of ordering a new Mac Pro, but am tossed up over the quad 2.93 or the Octa 2.26. I'll be using it mainly for composing with Logic Studio. I find its a bit of a pain to record the sounds from my Motif ES8, so I'm going to start using software instruments more.
Does anyone know if Logic uses multiple cores? I googled this and couldn't find much on it.
If I get the quad, I'm going to load it to the max of 8G RAM. If I get the Octa 2.26, I will get 12G RAM. Will Logic take advantage of the extra RAM?
Right now, I'm leaning towards the quad 2.26. I keep my Macs for a long time. I currently have a 4 year old G5 iMac with 2G RAM.
Thanks for any opinions.

I'm With Dual G5 PowerPC version 3.1 (90nm thecnology)
Logic works fine, but when I need to recording with Omnisphere or Kontakt 3... or any Live Instruments... (anyway I'm able to use the Maximum power request patches of all 3rd party plugs that are installed in My G5)
I need MORE SINGLE THREAD POWER... because Logic and most of 3rdparty plugs allow you to use ONLY ONE CORE (or processor).
The ability to overclocking of the Nehalem processor is very interesting...
you will be able to have up to 3.3Ghz in a single thread operation!
So... I'm not sure to buy a new Mac before Snow Leopard... because I can use my G5 smoothly and if needed I have my Black Macbook for adding power (I have 2X Motu interface (828 MK3 and Mk2).
But if hypothetically I were to buy now...: the best Mac value for money semms to be the Quad 2.93 with full Ram set 8GB!
I don't believe about Multitrhead is needed for Live Audio performances
The power on the single core is very important...
I love to export as Audio the tracks
when I use 3rd party Instruments the ammount of crash risk during the Mix down the percentage are:
with Instruments in Live mode about 80% during professional mixdown
With Audio tracks 0% of crash diring professional Mixdown
Logic Pro is a rock solid DAW if used only with Audio tracks and Logic native instruments!
I'm able to MIX more than 160 Stereo tracks with My System...
I can wait for Snow Leopard Machines.
G

Which new Mac Pro for Logic?

Well, they're out and on the AppleStore and I have about £2800 burning a hole in my pocket...
My question is, for that money I can configure either an 8-core machine running at 2.26GHz, or a quad-core running at 2.93GHz. Can anyone tell me which route is likely to be better for running Logic with lots of tasty plug-ins? I've budgeted for 8Gb of RAM and a second hard drive for sample data, so it's just the processor(s) left to decide on.
At the moment I'm running it on a 1.83GHz Core Duo MacBook Pro, where it limps along painfully, so I don't really have any experience of how well it utilises extra processing cores. I'd welcome any advice.

Hey MIke I agree that some thought should given to technology 5 years down the road but you are making my point about chasing technology. Its all a guessing game. Look at TVs. Look at phones. Etc.
Technology is moving so fast that you have to just use your gear in the moment and hope for the best.
It is not realistic in 2009 to predict 5 years down the road. Its just a big guess. What about the Mac pros that come out in 2 years. Will they make this years new Mac Pro obsolete? People will be having this same discussion in 2 years? They might not even make a desktop in 5 years. Look at the power of laptops now. Desktop sales are very weak and if this trend continues they will fade. I bought my 8 core almost a year ago and I would have had to wait a year if I chose to chase technolgy. When I bought my Apogee Ensemble I did think to myself that great they will probably release a new Ensemble with more Mic inputs. But I am glad I got it and use it and no worries. We are at the mercy of Apple so they will dictate the future and they arent going to tell consumers their 5 year plan anyway. Ok I will shut up.

What spec Mac Pro for Logic Pro X?

Hi. I'm thinking of getting one of the new Mac Pros. Primarily it's because I want to have sufficient power to run Logic Pro X together with a number of virtual instruments with sample libraries like EWQL Hollywood Strings, NI Komplete Ultimate and Synthogy Ivory II.
The choices I need to make include processor, RAM and storage, but what is a set up that will run happily now and be powerful enough to cope a few years down the line?
Can anyone also please recommend a good interface? My keyboard is a Roland RD700NX.
Thanks in advance for your help.

I've just been going through the same query for a client. Various tests on both platforms tell me that the 3.2GHz is 11% faster and that's virtually nothing for the extra cost.
I recommended to my client that he should bank the money and consider another upgrade in 18 months. 50% extra money for 11% grunt is not a good investment. Better to enjoy the 2.8 (plenty for loads of audio tracks, 72 instantiations of Space Designer and 16 Sculptures, according to my tests) and upgrade more regularly - say every 18 months rather than every 3 years. Easily affordable by saving the money and gives more horse-power per annum.
I'm on a 4-way and rarely, if ever, blow the CPU. Likewise (with three internal disks), I never get audio sync problems. Max projects are 50 to 60 tracks (film and sound design) so 4-way is fine for me so I assume that heavy duty use of 8-way will be rock solid.
My only slight disappointment in testing the 8-way was that Handbrake doesn't gear up to that number of cores. However, if that's not your bag, then 2.8 GHz all the way for my money, or at least, my client's...
Pete

Universal Audio Card in mac pro and logic together.

Hello, I am thinking on purchasing an Universal Audio Card and using it with a mac pro and logic studio.
Does anyone know if they have used or know about using a Universal Audio card (UAD-2 Nevana 32), or any other universal audio card?
Can you use this card with a mac pro and logic studio and does it have any latency issues? And can you use the Universal's mixor and logic's mixor at the same time, Or do you just use the plug ins on the UAD when using logic. Also it looks like it comes with one input on the card, so how do you plug in multiple guitars and bass and piano, or do you just run one input in and buy a input device for it (what would I need to buy for that?), Thanks so much.
Lou.

Universal's documentation says that it is compatible with Logic 7 and Logic 8. You might want to ask in the Logic forums about hands-on experiences. Universal also has their own forums where you'll probably be more likely to get useful information from experienced users:
http://www.studionu.com/uadforums/
Regards.

Soundtrack pro from Logic Studio & Final Cut Pro(please read)

i recently purchased a mac pro an logic studio for soundtrack after using a mac at school.
we had the soundtrack version that came bundled with final cut pro and i have noticed that some of the samples that are in the final cut version differ from the logic version ( nuther lectro, ethnic FX loop and so on). im wondering if there is any way of obtaining loops from the final cut version for use with my logic version..
thanks in advance

i purchased the logic studio suite and it came with 5 jam packs..the other one i spoke of that was bundled with final cut had no additional content outside of the stock basic content in the core program, so my new question would be, if i can locate the individual samples from an earlier version, could i just drop them into the library for use??
thanks in advance

Hard Drive Configuration for Logic Studio 9

Based on a lot of prior feedback on this forum, we plan to utilize three separate hard drives on a Mac Pro for Logic 9 -- The System Drive, plus a separate work drive to store and work on the audio/MIDI files, and another hard drive dedicated to sound libraries. My question is, when we go about loading the sound libraries and their engines, do we load them onto the system drive (where Logic will live) and then just copy the actual sample/loop folders to the other hard drive? Or perhaps we should load the entire library and all its files onto the dedicated sound library drive?
As an example, when loading EWQL Symphonic Gold, do we load the PLAY engine onto the system drive and then load the Symph Gold Library onto the dedicated hard drive? Same question for ToonTracks, Superior Drummer 2.0 (VSSD Box) and Big Fish Audio Mojo and First Call Horns which I both believe will run with the newest Kontakt 4.0 engine.
We want to access these various libraries from inside Logic 9. How do we install the engines versus the actual sounds?

heelo blayzay
thanks for the reply and assistance.
1) how can i create a back up set for the 4th HD to be make back up of the 2nd and 3rd HD
2) what about to make 1st HD for system and 2nd3rd4th (1.5TB) for audio recording, and an external drive for backups ?
For the back ups , is there a special process for the backing up HD (internal or external) ? Or should i just need a Clone software to make the back up
thank you again.

Mac Pro drive configuration/expansion advice for Time Machine

I have the following:
Mac Pro 1Tb internal drive (2 x 500Gb in software RAID, so 2 drive bays used, 2 free)
500Gb external drive (Formac XTR platinum - 2 x 250Gb in RAID)
I use SuperDuper to backup the internal to the external - I'm using about 440Gb on the internal and this fits on the external with about 10-20Gb spare. However, my usage of the internal drive is growing, and as Time Machine backups grow in size, my 500Gb external will very quickly lose the ability to go back in time and shortly afterwards run out of space for even a simple backup.
My options are:
1. Buy 2 500Gb IDE drives and upgrade the external to 1Tb - Cost about £140. If I put the redundant 250Gb drives in enclosures and sell them, net cost would come down to about £100
2. Buy single 750Gb SATA drive and install internally for TM backups - cost £110. Sell external drive and cost comes down to about £40
3. Buy 2 500Gb SATA drives and install inside Mac Pro for Time Machine - Cost about £130. Sell external and cost about £60
4. Buy single 1Tb SATA drive and install internally for TM backups - cost £200. Sell external and cost about £130
Pros & Cons
Option 1 - Con: Left with untidy external enclosure. Pro - 2 internal bays free for expansion.
Option 2 - Con: Less internal expansion, Pro: No untidy external box, can add another 750Gb drive when required
Option 3 - Con: No internal expansion. Pro: Ermmm, not sure.
Option 3 - Con: Most expensive. Pro: Longer time required before need to add another drive.
I know external drives are useful for off-site backups but I do have a 160Gb and a 320Gb external drives for that purpose (and for TM'ing my MacBook).
I think I've answered my own question - get a 750Gb SATA drive and stick it inside.
Regards,
Steve

I am in a similar situation. I have a 160gb for my boot/system drive and two 500gb for data, backed up to two other 500gb drives. Both 500gb drives are about 80% full and I bring in 50 or gig a week, paring it down quite a bit, then importing new photos and culling them out again. I may replace my 160 backup drive for my boot partition with a 750gig, but I don't see Time Machine being capable of backing up a 500 or 750gig drive that had several hundred gigs of current data and moves gig after gig onto and then out of the hard drive. I think Time Machine will be really great for many many people, and if it allows me to "roll back" my system to an earlier known-good point in time even better than my current method of using superduper when I feel my system is stable, then Time Machine will be great for me too, but I don't see how it's going to be usable for data backup for heavy professional photographic work or for video backup where large amounts of data are entered, deleted, entered again, deleted, etc etc. There isn't enough anectodal information on Time Machine to know what size is going to be really required, but I think most folks will be surprised at how much room is going to be needed - especially those that use their machines heavily. Mom and Dad who do nothing but a few emails and surfing the web will have no problem, Mac Pro users involved with grahics and video...not so easy I'm afraid. Time will tell.

I am thinking of using a Mac pro for share trading. Can anyone share their experience and suggest specs for 30 -40 monitors etc

Hi
I am thinking of using a Mac Pro for share trading.
I am proposing to start small but want to be able to expand up to 30+ monitors.
It must be super quick.
Any help with hardware would be appreciated.
Software is secondary at this point , but open to advice.
I have an iphone and ipad so feel it will better intergrate usung Apple
regards
David

There is no desktop machine that I know of that will support 30+ monitors as is.
Fill the 3 or 4 PCIe slots of any logic board with three port graphics cards and you have the physical cap without additional hardware.
Software is secondary at this point
No, without software, how can you control more than the monitor limit of the OS?
How can you set up the monitors to display the various programs that you will wish to use simultaneously?
Software is a major consideration.
Matrox (and others) have solutions for additional monitors beyond the physical capabilities of generally offered graphics cards.
The caveat here, however, is support software is typically reserved for Windows and Linux systems.
Matrox has a single 8 display card:
http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/graphics_cards/m_series/m9188pciex16/
Matrox has solutions specifically targeting the finance market:
http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/solutions/trading_analyst/
Though the Mac Pro has more than adequate processing power, I think that you will find (through research) that building a solid machine capable of using several multi monitor cards is going to be what you will need to support more than 8-10 monitors with conventionally offered hardware.
Fun stuff:
http://www.digitaltigers.com/zenview.asp

An Intel iMac AND a MacBook Pro for Logic Pro?

I am torturing myself over this issue lately so any input you guys could offer would be welcome!
This is the situation:
After 3 months of serious debating whether to purchase a 20" Intel iMac or a MacBook Pro for Logic Pro, I went ahead about 3 weeks ago and got the iMac. My reasoning behind this was that even though I found the portability of the MBP very desirable, the iMac simply represented a better value with the big screen and bigger hard drive. Since getting it, I must say I love this machine and I have not had one single problem with it. Logic 7.2 runs like a dream on it. By the way, aside from maintaing my iTunes Library, occasional iLife stuff and web surfing with Safari, this iMac is for music production only.
But here's the problem:
Still, I can't seem to shake the desire for OCCASSIONAL portability. Keep in mind, I am only a "serious" music hobbyist; I create instrumental hip-hop, trip-hop, electronica style of music mainly with software instruments, loops and breakbeats. So needless to say, I don't tour or do a lot of travelling. But the prospect of being able to compose tracks or make beats in Logic anywhere is DESIRABLE to say the least. I could compose while sitting on the couch watching a game or laying in bed - even though I have no idea of how often I'd actually do that, just having the ability to do it is VERY APPEALING to me. Throw in the fact that the iMac currently shares deskspace with a PC that my wife uses - meaning that I often have to stop what I'm doing to let her use the space. With a laptop, I could move and still continue my flow. Lastly, I unfortunately have bad knees and a bad back so after a couple of hours (or 3 or 4) of sitting at the desk working on Logic, I am seriously hurting. Not comfortable at all. At least owning a MacBook would give me the option to move around to some place more comfortable if I desire.
So...
Even though I recently bought a wonderful iMac that works great, I'm seriously considering getting a 1.83 MBP with at least 1GB of RAM and the 100GB/7200 RPM drive to accompany it just for the portability factor. Sure, I could get a used G4 PowerBook or iBook, but all I own is the Universal Binary of Logic Pro; I would have a hard time accepting the decrease in speed I've gotten use to on the Core Duo. Besides, I inherently have a problem buying something (even used) that I know is old and out of date when the latest and greatest is available.
So here is the $25,000 question: Am I nuts for even considering this? Am I placing too much of a premium on the portability as I would use it?
This could easily be justified if I was a working musician on the road, but that ain't me. And you can believe that I'm definately not rich and thus don't have money lying around.
But I have obsessed over this so much lately, I feel that I almost have to get it just to put my mind at ease! I even briefly considered putting the iMac on eBay and just buying a MBP to replace it, but I love the screen real estate I get with the 20" iMac and I question if I'll be truly satisfied with a 15.4" screen FULL TIME. 17" might be better, but I doubt if I can wait until June for them to arrive. In addition, everything would connected via my wireless LAN and .Mac so file sharing should not be an issue.
Help!!!
What would you do? Sell the iMac or just get a MBP as cheap as I can?
Opinions, Please!
20" iMac Core Duo, 2GHz, 2 GB RAM, 250 GB HD, 128MB VRAM Mac OS X (10.4.4)

I love the portability my powerbook gives me. You can use a PB in your setup. You can run an external monitor for either PB or MBP. You can node. Universal Binary menas it is an application which has the components written for both PPC and Intel chips-so you don't need to do conversion. Nodes won't require you buy a nother license. so the answer is down to how much the 2 upgrades and 1 crossgrades will set you back vs how much use you'll get out of them. IMO the iMac is inexpensive (I mean that in a good way-worth hooding on to). Maybe just look at a refurb PB unless you really have the extra cash.

Which current Mac Pro for Aperture/Photoshop

After much research and what seems to be chasing my tail, I though I'd ask the forum for some advice on which machine will best suit my needs. I am currently running Aperture and Photoshop CS3 and looking for a fast machine for the job. I sort through around 2500-3000 raw files per week and hope the new Intel Xeons will speed up my workflow. It's the question of "How many cores are better?" that's confusing me as I am unclear on how many Aperture and Photoshop can actually make use of.
I'm looking to upgrade from my 3.06 iMac to a Mac Pro but having trouble choosing between a new 2.66 quad or a refurbished 2.26 8-core. I understand the drop in processor speed might be noticeable in some instances but the from what I have gathered an upgrade to the ATI HD 4870 is a must as is 6GB ram on the 2.66 and 8GB ram on the 2.26. It's not so much the price difference of the two machines (£2200 for the upgraded 2.66 and roughly £2700 for a refurbished 2.26 plus upgrades) it's will my workflow see any great benefits from the 8-core over the quad. The program I use most is Aperture, followed by Photoshop then FotoMagico, iDVD and Toast Titanium. Does Snow Leopard affect the use of cores in these programs?
Any feedback is much appreciated or pointing in the direction of some real world tests as all the bench tests of the 8-core are so impressive but I'll not be using it for 3D/Video at all.
Thanks in advance for your help.

According to the Adobe blog the delay in offering a 64-bit suite for Mac is because the entire suite has to be rewritten in Cocoa (both previous and current offerings are written in Carbon) CS5 will be written in Cocoa and will utilise the full functionality of the Snow Leopard OS (OpenGL, GCD etc) so memory addressing will be a huge step forward on Photoshop (which I use).
I used Photoshop CS4 on a 2008 Mac Pro 2 x 2.8GHz 8 core (dual Xeon 5400 series Quad core CPUs) and just recently switched to a 2009 Mac Pro 2 x 2.26GHz 8 core (Xeon 5500 series Quad core CPUs). I used CS3 on the original Mac Pro 2 x 2.66Ghz (Dual Xeon Dual Core CPUs = 4 cores total). It's not a fair reflection as CS3 ran under Rosetta on the original Mac Pro and CS4 has better integration on the Intel based Macs, but in general, I noticed a much better rate of workflow on the 8 core machines over the 4 core machine.
More importantly, I would point out that running batch process of RAW files in CaptureOne Pro was significantly performing the batch process on the 8 core machines than on the 4 core machine. (250 RAW files {with no corrections] from a Canon EOS 1D MKII into 16-bitt TIFF files). I can't remember the exact figures but the 8 core machines were @ 23 - 25 minutes quicker than the 4 core machine.
I know it's not scientific and software versions were different which could add to the different results in part, but the 8 core machines both out performed the 4 core machine substantially.
However, the 2009 Mac Pro Quad Core is capable of running 2 threads per core (in effect a virtual 8 core machine and as many reviewers have pointed out, perform faster than the 8 core Mac Pro in certain applications (which have not been written to utilise the full multi-CPU-multi-core environment.
The Memory limitation on the Quad Core is 16GB RAM (Apple state 8GB but reviewers have installed 4 x 4GB DIMMs into the Quad Core without issue). Unless you are doing 3D or HD rendering etc you probably won't really need over 16GBs of RAM, however the cost of 4GB memory sticks is expensive. Crucial only offer a 12GB kit for the Quad Core Mac Pro 2009 to make full use of the triple channel memory speeds (DDR3 best performance in multiples of 3) and 12GBs from Crucial is @£771.00 (prices correct at time of writing this. This equates to @ £257 per 4GB.
Total for Quad Mac Pro with 12GB (3 x 4GB RAM) = £2670
Total for Octo Core Mac Pro with 12GB (6 x 2GB RAM) =£2731 (New price not refurb)
Graphics card upgrade etc will be the same on both machines. Memory based on Crucial Memory prices.
So, for a 2009 Mac Pro with 12GB RAM, it is £61 dearer for an 8 core (virtual 16 cores) machine over the Quad Core Mac Pro. The 8 core system will give you further memory expansion once prices of the 4GB memory sticks come down significantly. The Quad Core will only be able to be upgraded with 8GB RAM sticks over the 4GB sticks available now and will cost a huge amount at time of launch.
Buying a refurbishment 2.26 GHz with similar memory upgrade would in my opinion be the way to go. I know the CPU clock speed is lower, but in real time non memory intensive applications the difference will be hardly noticeable.
I went through the same dilemma as you. I opted for the 8 core system with 12GB RAM and the ATI HD4870 graphics (bought as an upgrade kit so was dearer than the build to order option). I am very happy with my purchase.
The other option is to check out eBay there may be a very well spec'd 2008 Mac Pro for sale with warranty, 16GB RAM and the 8800GT graphics card for less than either of the new systems.
Over the long term, the 8 core offers more affordable customisation options over the Quad Core, but it depends on how long you plan to use the machine

Ideal Mac Pro for After Effects

I'm planning on buying a new Mac Pro for use with After Effects CS5.
Between the single 3.33GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” processor model or the two 2.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” (8 cores) processor model, which would be faster for working in After Effects CS5?
Also how much RAM would be ideal? Would more than 16GB be worth it? Would the ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB upgrade make a considerable difference?
Thanks.

Hate to say it but "it depends." But one thing is clear: 2.4GHz is slow and more cores don't make up or help.
Maybe your work is with huge files or would benefit from a Quadro.
3 x 8GB of RAM on 3.33GHz is general advice.
And there are dozens of topics on the subject in
http://www.macperformanceguide.com - be sure to click on Topics

Planning to buy macbook pro for logic - dual or quad?

Hi
I am planning to buy a MBP, my budget is tight, as I also will have to upgrade
Logic and Native Instruments stuff to run on the new machine.
If I buy the 15'' 2.8 Ghz dual core, I will upgrade to 8GB right away.
I guess the 15'' 2.4 Ghz quad core should be faster, but then I might have
to defer upgrading to 8 GB (but it will done for sure at some point).
Does Logic take advantage of quad core surplus performance?
What do you guys suggest?
Thanks a lot

I was pondering the same decision, and was "steered" by an Apple salesperson to a Mac Mini with Lion Server instead.
How could I give up a laptop? Easy: as I travel less and less for business, and this way I get quad-core, i7 performance for under a grand. Add 8GB of RAM, and swap out one of the two 500GB drives for a fast SSD (such as one from OWC), and you have a perfect combo for Logic Studio.
If I really need a laptop in the future, I'll probably go for an refurb i5 Air, when they drop a little in price.
Cheers!
Tony.

Which Mac to buy - Is a Mac Pro for me?

I have been using a PC for nearly 20 years starting in High School. I am desperate to change my ageing and slow PC for a Mac as I mainly use it for video and photo editing. To start with I will be using FCE 4 and Appeture 2, but see myself outgrowing these within a couple of years. For a while I have wanted a Mac Pro, but a friend recently suggested getting an iMac and upgrading it to 4GB ram and 1TB hard drive. I want to be able to easily upgrade my mac in months / years to come as I have done with my PC. Is the Mac Pro the best option for me, plus does any one have any ideas when the new Mac Pro may be announced. Possibly WWDC 2009 in June?
Many thanks
Matt

I just received my new Mac pro dual 3.2 system. I have been a Mac user for 15 years and find it hard to think about going to a PC. I have both PC and Mac, but do all design work on a Mac. The RIP programs need to use a PC and that's all I can do with them.
I too work some with video and I can tell you what I have come across. I started with FCP 3 when it come out and upgraded along the way and started using FCP Studio 2 recently. There seem to be more problems with all the HD stuff. I guess it depends on how much video you plan to do, but you will find it takes a heavy duty system if you plan to work in HD (highly dysfunctional). I have dealt with post production houses and most are using PC systems with Avid. All have a Mac with FCP, but it does not seem to be the main system they use. There is a big jump in price to go the next level and now the Mac Pro with FCP Studio is working OK. There are issues as I would think there would be with Avid, but I am not willing to spend the money to find out at this time. The other thing I ran into is the large Apple displays are a problem for some editing systems. I am running two 30 inch cinema displays and they will not work with Avid.
I feel Apple has dropped the ball on working with the graphics people that supported them for so many years. They are so big it is hard to deal with them like the old days and i-pods are their number one market. I am disappointed in the experience in this last purchase, but again, I can't see making the move to going all PC....not yet any way!
So depending on what you plan to do in the future, I would suggest looking deeper than the Apple site for suggestions on a new system. If you plan to work with video and stay under 30,000...Apple is the best option from my experience.

My serial number for Logic Studio doesn't work. I used one from a different box and it worked. How can I get a new number?

My serial number for Logic Studio doesn't work. I used one from a different box and it worked. How can I get a new number?

http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2005
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1861
https://ssl.apple.com/support/proapps/serialnumbers/

Mac Pro for Logic Studio...advice?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for