Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Used vs New MacBook Pros


OneBadCat

Recommended Posts

Hey guys I’m in the market for a new laptop. Trying to stay under $900. I’d like to get a MacBook Pro for editing purposes. They also seem to last a pretty long time.

I can get a near mint 2012 model pre retina for about $450. They are also the last year model you can upgrade. So I was thinking I can future proof it and upgrade the ram to 12 or 16gb and then install a solid state drive. The only thing about this route is I don’t know how much longer Apple will support new operating systems  for them. 

On the other side it seems like a good condition 13/14 model is going for around $700 at least. But the hardware is not upgradable and most of the ones I see for sale are 8gb ram and 128/256gb of solid state drive. But i figure the technology is newer and probably runs more efficiently.

I recently switched to iPhone and currently have an 8 Plus. I tape a lot of self tape audition videos with it and I basically want to stream line the process and make it idiot proof when uploading. 

Can anyone with mac experience chime in?

Edit:  So i suppose this isn’t used vs new but old vs newer. Brand new mcp is completely out of my price range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For basic, start/end, editing where you aren't color grading or doing multiple layers or effects work, about anything will work.

Keep in mind that Macs don't age the same.  While my wife is lucky her 2010 13.3" mbp was able to be upgraded to 16gb or ram and a SSD, it still doesn't make the guts any faster.  I was trying to simply put a few video clips together and that brought the CPU to it's knees.

Go for the best processor you can get.  At your budget, I'd look around the non Mac world. Macs can be wonderful, but they aren't cheap and are easy spot/steal. My wife had someone at a coffee shop try to grab hers while her back was turned.  Good thing I was sitting behind her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a mac user but my last 2 pc s have been reconditioned Dells from the Dell web site.  Both have been like new computers and I saved about $200 off the brand new price.   Id only pull the trigger on one if it was from a reputable dealer with an iron clad warranty period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2017 at 7:49 PM, d-dave said:

For basic, start/end, editing where you aren't color grading or doing multiple layers or effects work, about anything will work.

Keep in mind that Macs don't age the same.  While my wife is lucky her 2010 13.3" mbp was able to be upgraded to 16gb or ram and a SSD, it still doesn't make the guts any faster.  I was trying to simply put a few video clips together and that brought the CPU to it's knees.

Go for the best processor you can get.  At your budget, I'd look around the non Mac world. Macs can be wonderful, but they aren't cheap and are easy spot/steal. My wife had someone at a coffee shop try to grab hers while her back was turned.  Good thing I was sitting behind her.

Thanks I appreciate your advice. What pc laptop would you recommend? And following that, what kind of editing program? A friend of mine has adobe premiere but as I understand it you have to pay for that per month and is rather expensive. I’d likely just be making simple edits and cuts but would like something a little more than basic capability if I wanted to make a short film perhaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you want straight up licensed software without needing to do crazy editing, you should probably look into one of the mid tier vegas pro wares.

adobe has always been annoying with their licensing, and a lot of ppl including me have issues with them switching over to a subscription service for licensing, but they honestly have the most robust product in the market for editing.

i used to work for a media conglomerate and ppl would come up to me with brand new macbooks that they were just given and saying that premiere pro wasn’t rendering projects fast enough for them, but they were also overworked divas so w/e. it does nothing to take away from the fact that adobe killed the final cut suite and took over their share of this niche.

other than that, d-dave is right in the sense that a PC is only as fast as its most obsolete component. so you can quadruple your RAM and upgrade your 5400 rpm HDD to a samsung SSD, but even if that macbook has an i7, well there are probably new laptops you can buy with mid tier i5 processors today that are probably faster than what that macbook has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2018 at 11:03 PM, OneBadCat said:

Thanks I appreciate your advice. What pc laptop would you recommend? And following that, what kind of editing program? A friend of mine has adobe premiere but as I understand it you have to pay for that per month and is rather expensive. I’d likely just be making simple edits and cuts but would like something a little more than basic capability if I wanted to make a short film perhaps.

For $800ish, you can fine a quad core laptop with decent ram and a SSD in a number of places.  The leveno yoga line has some good options.  I'm personally looking at a Dell 15" 7000 because for about $900 you get a quad core, 8gb ram and a 256 SSD with a 1060 max q.

As fast as video editing, I'd check out hit film.  (https://hitfilm.com).  It's a pretty powerful free program that also has a compositor (like after effects).  For better color work, black magic davimci resolve is dope(  https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve/).

Both do alot of what Adobe does well enough. They will do well for basic cutting and whatever future plans you make for your editing.

Both resolve and hitfilm have free versions that are quite good.  Their paid versions aren't unreasonable either, eving less than $400.

I use premiere at work, and someone else pays for it :). For my personal work, I used hitfilm.  I just need a better computer myself once I get some debt paid off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Yeah I was crying about this earlier in the year when we got to 6 wins. Equal number to Wilks.  We are still a QB away. 
    • Hey y'all, a topic that has been on my mind has always been the parallels between two of the best quarterbacks in the history of the NFC South and ultimately their place in history and how they are viewed moving forward through the rest of NFL history. These two quarterbacks as you might have guessed are their respective franchises greatest signal callers, Cam Newton and Matt Ryan.  Cam Newton (144 Games Started): 269 TDs (1.8 per contest), 123 INTs, Super Bowl Appearance, OROTY, MVP  Matt Ryan (234 Games Starter):  394 TDs (1.6 per contest), 183 INTs, Super Bowl Appearance, OROTY, MVP  Obviously on first glance, these are very similar players with identical top accomplishments. Let's zoom in a little bit on their surrounding talent. C Cam Newton top offensive producers:  Greg Olsen (TE) (9 Seasons) (3 Pro Bowls) Steve Smith Sr. (WR) (3 Seasons) (1 Pro Bowl) Matt Ryan top offensive producers:  Julio Jones (WR) (10 Seasons) (7 Pro Bowls)  Roddy White (WR) (8 Seasons) (4 Pro Bowls)  Tony Gonzalez (TE) (5 Seasons) (4 Pro Bowls)  Wow, quite the difference here. Through Cam's career his top option was Greg Olsen, who was one of the best tight ends of his generation and a real difference maker in an offense reliant on their quarterback making plays outside of structure. Newton post Steve Smith Sr was saddled with a revolving door of Chicken McNobodies at the receiver position and the offense had to be funneled through the tight end and running attack as Jericho Cotchery, Corey Brown, Jason Avant, Kelvin Benjamin, etc was not getting the job done. Ryan on the other hand was consistently surrounded with top level offensive weapons, including one of the best receivers and tight ends in the history of the game, thanks in part to an aggressive general manager who wanted to ensure they could maximize the arm talent of their franchise quarterback.  How about protection?  Cam Newton top offensive lineman: Jordan Gross (3 Seasons) (1 Pro Bowl)  Ryan Kalil (8 Seasons) (2 Pro Bowls) Andrew Norwell (4 Seasons)  Trai Turner (6 Seasons) (5 Pro Bowls) Matt Ryan top offensive lineman:  Jake Matthews (8 Seasons) (1 Pro Bowl)  Alex Mack (5 Seasons) (3 Pro Bowls)  Andy Levitre (3 Seasons)  Todd McLure (5 Seasons)  While Matt Ryan certainly had more consistency and high level talent on his offensive line, one could argue they had similar protection through the bulk of their career. Though one has to acknowledge some of the absolute dog water lineman that were trot out to protect Newton at his tackle spots post Jordan Gross retirement. Byron Bell, Mike Remmers, Matt Kalil, Chris Clark, Amini Silatolu, Nate Chandler, etc were all a collective pile of garbage save for two seasons from Remmers and a few splashes of brilliance from Michael Oher, Daryl Williams, and early career Taylor Moton.  Defense should be fairly simple.  Cam Newton defense average rank:  17th/32 Matt Ryan defense average rank:  18th/32  Honestly I was a bit surprised by this, I had thought Cam consistently had the better defenses, but when you look at the average it's shockingly close. While Newton did have the higher peaks of defense, Atlanta placed higher more consistently and only really faltered towards the end of Ryan's career. Both these players had on and off again defenses to rely on.  So what does all this mean?  1. I am bored at work  2. Cam Newton has the better body of work given the talent around him  While I am not sure either is necessarily a lock to get a gold jacket, it's undeniable that Newton carried his franchise on his back for the better part of his career and changed how quarterbacks are viewed as a whole. Newton became the blueprint for a new breed of signal caller, and Ryan is the standard that is set for pocket quarterbacks in the modern league. Both players deserve their kudos for what they did for their franchises and how they morphed their team's identity, but Newton I think was clearly the better of the NFC South quarterbacks, especially if he had remained as healthy as Ryan did. 
    • 100% agree, trading him would be the best possible scenario. It allows for a clean start at QB and you get something back.
×
×
  • Create New...