Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 14, 2013, 06:34 PM   #501
appliv
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM View Post
You are within your return period. In addition to the 0.1GHz base speed (which is actually 0.2GHz in Turbo Boost), you would also get the lower price. I'd see if you can get the price differential back if you don't want to go through the hassle of getting a new machine.
I am in the situation and called the apple store. The representative only offered me 30$ refund. I am still yet to decide whether to return it or accept the rather small refund!
appliv is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2013, 07:36 PM   #502
poorcow
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisrosemusic1 View Post
You'd be best of calling them - if you bought it through Apple online they won't exchange in a store.

Find the number for the country where it was bought - they allow extra time providing they're aware of the situation.
It was actually bought from an Apple Premium Reseller.

It's more of a matter of Apple's exchange/return policy/protocol rather than a timing issue as I am still within the 14 days period by the time I get back to the UK.

But I will check with the shop to clarify.

Cheers.
poorcow is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2013, 09:00 PM   #503
mrhick01
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky Blue View Post
75% have Retina MacBook Pros?
I've seen a couple of dozen Retinas amongst the students.
mrhick01 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2013, 09:11 PM   #504
throAU
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by skaertus View Post
It matters if software is written for a given architecture. iPads, having an ARM architecture, cannot run Microsoft Office, for instance, or other software written for x86 CPUs. Software has to be written specifically for the architecture, and that makes the difference.

In addition, there is the difference in performance. An Intel processor is far faster than a processor made by AMD these days, and that affects the user experience. Quad-core processors tend to heat more, and that may also affect the end user experience.

So, it makes pretty much of a difference, even though the end user is not always aware of it.
I'm not saying the internals have no bearing on performance. I'm saying the end user isn't concerned about how the performance is obtained. If they run Windows then sure they'll likely be swayed to an x86 machine, because it will perform well. But whether it is intel or AMD is irrelevant to most people.

Again. End user cares about the performance (what the machine does) not the bits inside that provide it.

They care about how hot and noisy the machine is. Not that it necessarily has a quad core vs dual core.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by kycophpd View Post
It has been consistently proven that you can do about the same with 8GB memory in a Mac as you can with 16GB in a PC.
Sorry but that is just not necessarily true.

I'm a massive apple fanboy, but there are plenty of cases where i can do more with less on a PC, especially if I'm running Linux or similar on it.

But its moot anyway. RAM is cheap. Load up on it, and run the platform you need to support your apps.
__________________
MBP (early 2011) - Core i7 2720 2.2ghz, Hires Glossy, 16GB, Seagate Momentus XT 750GB
Mac Mini (mid 2007) - Core2 Duo 1.8, 2gb, 320gb 7200 rpm
iPhone 4S, iPad 4, iPad Mini, HTC One (eval)
throAU is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2013, 10:53 PM   #505
apple-win
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Figure of Merit

Use "battery life to weight ratio" as figure of merit, 2010 13" MBP is better than 13" retina MBP. This is one of the reasons I'm not planning to buy a 13" retina MBP to replace my 2010 model.

2010 model : 10 hours / 4.5 pounds = 2.222 hour per pound

Retina model : 7 hours / 3.57 pounds = 1.96 hour per pound

Acoustic performance : 2010 model 16 dB, retina model no spec (i.e. more noise than other models)

http://support.apple.com/kb/SP583
http://support.apple.com/kb/SP658

Retina display needs high power backlight that reduces battery life. For example, iPad3 retina display has shorter battery life than iPad 2, and heavier too.

There is other figure of merit, such as, battery life per weight per price, 13" retina MBP still gets low score. Apple need to drop the price more.
apple-win is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2013, 10:55 PM   #506
Djlild7hina
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raizen.Z09 View Post
And now Apple offer i7-3820QM and 16GB in their stock-standard configuration, so it'll cost a little less money for me, I just need to configure it to a 2.80Ghz i7-3840QM (just considering though. $250 for just 100Mhz of clock speed difference, same cache size, same features. hmmm… ).
Actually the new 2.7 i7 is the 3740QM with 6mb Cache and not the 3820QM with 8 mb cache.

Personally, I'm waiting for Haswell to see what they will do with the cMBP and if they'll drop the prices on the retinas.
__________________
2013 15" rMBP 2.3/ 16GB/ 512GB
Silver iPhone 5S 64GB
Djlild7hina is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2013, 11:27 PM   #507
Raizen.Z09
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Cambodia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djlild7hina View Post
Actually the new 2.7 i7 is the 3740QM with 6mb Cache and not the 3820QM with 8 mb cache.

Personally, I'm waiting for Haswell to see what they will do with the cMBP and if they'll drop the prices on the retinas.
Ahh. My bad. The stock one is 2.7Ghz i7-3740QM with 6MB cache. I'm okay to spend $250 for 2MB more cache then. Thanks for the correction.

For me, I can't wait a few more months since my 2010 13" MBP is as slow as a snail. And I don't think Haswell worth the wait, those new feature will not benefit me much, I think.
Raizen.Z09 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2013, 02:53 AM   #508
Steve121178
macrumors 68000
 
Steve121178's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bedfordshire, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raizen.Z09 View Post
For me, I can't wait a few more months since my 2010 13" MBP is as slow as a snail. And I don't think Haswell worth the wait, those new feature will not benefit me much, I think.
There's no reason for a machine that's barely 3 years old to be performing "as slow as a snail". Have you tried reinstalling the OS or perhaps upgrading the HDD before splashing out on a new machine?
__________________
13" rMBP Haswell i5/16GB/512GB (Late '13) • 21.5" iMac i5/16GB/1TB Fusion (Late '12) • iPhone 5s 32GB • iPad rMini 32GB
Steve121178 is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2013, 05:43 AM   #509
iSunrise
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire View Post
This are the desktop versions. Mobile versions should appear in Apple products in Q4/2013-Q1/2014.
I was talking about the Intel release date, not the Apple release date, which still is purely speculation. Intel is going to introduce them pretty soon (4 months). The dual-cores will follow after that. Which means that the 15" line-up could be replaced sometime after June.

Haswell Quad-Cores are already up for pre-order:
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2013/2...pre-order.html
iSunrise is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2013, 06:50 AM   #510
sanford
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Dallas, USA
.1 GHz?

Wait a minute. On the base model 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro, the 8GB RAM/256GB flash drive model, the update here, the only difference is it's a 2.4 GHz quad-core i7 updated from the exact same quad-core i7 clocked at 2.3 GHz? Is that correct? Because usually I get pinched more by updates within 90 days of buying a pricey laptop but this is essentially no pinch at all. Not that even the top version, the 2.7 GHz/16GB RAM model, would do anything for me. 2.3 GHz/8GB more than blows the doors off the sort of work I do.

But am I missing something here? A .1 GHz update? That's sounds less like an update and more like a tech spec alignment with competing pro-line Windows laptops, or because the 2.3 GHz i7 is going out of production.
sanford is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2013, 11:08 AM   #511
31 Flavas
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanford View Post
Wait a minute. [... snip ...] But am I missing something here? A .1 GHz update? That's sounds less like an update and more like a tech spec alignment with competing pro-line Windows laptops, or because the 2.3 GHz i7 is going out of production.
Right, this was not a refresh of the product line. That might happen June - July or in the Fall.

This was a readjustment (or re-alignment) to packages on the existing line-up. Some places they adjusted the hardware, but kept the price. On others, they didn't change the hardware and instead cut the price.
31 Flavas is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2013, 11:15 AM   #512
linux2mac
macrumors 65816
 
linux2mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: "City of Lakes", MN
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raizen.Z09 View Post
For me, I can't wait a few more months since my 2010 13" MBP is as slow as a snail. And I don't think Haswell worth the wait, those new feature will not benefit me much, I think.
Huh? My 2010 13" C2D MBP is still running strong and I run Fusion VM's on it. I also have 8GB RAM and do clean installs for every major OSX Update ( i.e. SL to Lion and Lion to ML). Plus I run Onyx on a regular basis.
__________________
Steve Ballmer Named Worst CEO 2012
"Without a doubt, Mr. Ballmer is the worst CEO of a large publicly traded American company today." (Forbes - May 2012)
linux2mac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2013, 01:38 PM   #513
cjmillsnun
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Oh Bollocks. Guess who got a 2.6GHz RMBP less than a month ago (15 days)

NVM, it's still an awesome Mac
__________________
I support the MacRumors Blood Drive!

Last edited by cjmillsnun; Feb 15, 2013 at 01:45 PM.
cjmillsnun is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2013, 03:14 PM   #514
leftroom
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjmillsnun View Post
Oh Bollocks. Guess who got a 2.6GHz RMBP less than a month ago (15 days)

NVM, it's still an awesome Mac
Call Apple and say you want to return it. 15 days shouldn't be a problem.. That's what I think.. Come on, 1 day or 2 days.. Who cares. But you could try it
__________________
MacBook Pro 15.4" Retina | 2.3 GHz i7-3615QM | 16 GB DDR3L 1600 MHz | 256 GB SSD | 10.8.2
MacBook Pro 17"
PowerBook G4 12"
leftroom is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2013, 07:30 PM   #515
Zandros
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by apple-win View Post
Use "battery life to weight ratio" as figure of merit, 2010 13" MBP is better than 13" retina MBP. This is one of the reasons I'm not planning to buy a 13" retina MBP to replace my 2010 model.

2010 model : 10 hours / 4.5 pounds = 2.222 hour per pound

Retina model : 7 hours / 3.57 pounds = 1.96 hour per pound

Acoustic performance : 2010 model 16 dB, retina model no spec (i.e. more noise than other models)

http://support.apple.com/kb/SP583
http://support.apple.com/kb/SP658

Retina display needs high power backlight that reduces battery life. For example, iPad3 retina display has shorter battery life than iPad 2, and heavier too.

There is other figure of merit, such as, battery life per weight per price, 13" retina MBP still gets low score. Apple need to drop the price more.
Didn't Apple fairly recently say that they had adjusted how they calculate battery life though?
Zandros is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2013, 08:55 PM   #516
apple-win
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros View Post
Didn't Apple fairly recently say that they had adjusted how they calculate battery life though?
Battery life data are from Apple's technical specifications.

13" Retina MBP does not have optical drive and it is lighter. Therefore battery life per pound worst than 2010 model is not acceptable.

2010 MBP has 10 hour battery life, it is very important when I fly long-haul. In the airport terminal, the chairs near AC socket outlets are always occupied by other laptop users and smartphone users. I cannot plug AC adpator to use my MBP in the airport.

Another thing, my 2010 MBP runs Mountain Lion, it's not slow, no performance problem.
apple-win is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 03:33 AM   #517
The-Pro
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by apple-win View Post
Battery life data are from Apple's technical specifications.

13" Retina MBP does not have optical drive and it is lighter. Therefore battery life per pound worst than 2010 model is not acceptable.

2010 MBP has 10 hour battery life, it is very important when I fly long-haul. In the airport terminal, the chairs near AC socket outlets are always occupied by other laptop users and smartphone users. I cannot plug AC adpator to use my MBP in the airport.

Another thing, my 2010 MBP runs Mountain Lion, it's not slow, no performance problem.
Just like the user you quoted said, Apple adjusted the way they calculate battery life. You calculation of battery life per pound is done from two apple specified numbers that are not comparable because different tests were run to find out these numbers. If you might have noticed all apple notebooks are rated at 7 hours. Despite the cMBP 13" still being capable of more. You need to compare the 13" rMBP with a current 13" MBP because the claimed battery life was calculated in the same way.

Im sure if you really try and save battery you can get more than 7 hours out of the 13 rMBP
__________________
2012 15" 2.6 i7 AG MBP, 2009 17" AG MBP, 2009 8C 2.26 MP, 2010 4c MP,2010+07 MM, 17" 2007 MBP,20" iMac G5,17" PB G4,4x30"CD,2x23" CD, G3's,G4's, 17"iMac g4,iMac G3 turquoise,macintoshes dating to 1985
The-Pro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 08:45 AM   #518
KPOM
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanford View Post
But am I missing something here? A .1 GHz update? That's sounds less like an update and more like a tech spec alignment with competing pro-line Windows laptops, or because the 2.3 GHz i7 is going out of production.
It's the latter. It's the same with the 13". The base 13" ships with the 2.5GHz i5-3210M. The 256GB model ships with a 2.6GHz i5-3230M. The 3230M is simply the production replacement for the 3210M (which is still available for sale). It is not the same as the 2.6GHz i5-3320M that Intel has made available to OEMs since June 2012. That version Turbo Boost to 3.3GHz and has a GPU speed of 1.2GHz. The i5-3230M in the new 13" rMBP boosts to 3.2GHz and the GPU tops out at 1.1GHz.
KPOM is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 03:00 PM   #519
OhHaiThere
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by kycophpd View Post
It has been consistently proven that you can do about the same with 8GB memory in a Mac as you can with 16GB in a PC.
Can you please link me to this proof? I've never seen such claims and haven't had that experience. It would be very hard for an average user to use up 8Gb of ram on a Mac or non-Mac, not to mention 16Gb.

A friend of mine just built a PC with 128Gb of ram, but for the kind of work he does, he needs it. I'm pretty sure a Mac with 64Gb of ram couldn't bend the laws of physics for him
__________________
HP MicroServer w/Windows Server 2012; Lenovo W530 (2441-36U); Lenovo X1 Carbon (i7/8gb); Nexus 5 (16gb);Apple TV1 w/Crystalbuntu; iPad Mini; Chromecast
OhHaiThere is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 05:02 PM   #520
DangerClose
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Has anyone who is past the return window inquired about an exchange? I have a 15" 2.7 with 8GB, and I'm ticked off that 16GB is now included for the same price I paid.
DangerClose is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 05:06 PM   #521
maxosx
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Southern California
The 13" is an excellent model yet retina & Apples high margins are hurting it. Finally Apple is realizing the days of charging very high prices are fading.
maxosx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 06:34 PM   #522
KPOM
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxosx View Post
The 13" is an excellent model yet retina & Apples high margins are hurting it. Finally Apple is realizing the days of charging very high prices are fading.
Yes and no. The 15" model still commands a premium. I always had the sense that the 13" price would come down when Apple decided to "mainstream" it. The 13" cMBP starts at $1199, and so $1699 was always unsustainable long term. That said, the price did come down a bit more quickly than I thought it would. I figured Apple would wait until the Haswell refresh.

As for the NAND prices, Apple had held out at $2/GB for a lot longer than I thought they would. I'm not surprised by those price drops at all. SSDs have been $1/GB for over a year now.
KPOM is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 07:42 AM   #523
AndersBeider
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Denmark
Send a message via Skype™ to AndersBeider
:)

When is the next update then? lol!
__________________
15" Macbook Pro Retina (2013) 2.8 GHz, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD ; Apple Thunderbolt Display ; 32 GB iPhone 5 ; 16 GB iPad 3 ; Apple TV3 ; Airport Extreme 5Ghz
AndersBeider is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 07:20 PM   #524
Candlelight
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: New Zealand
Until there is a 1TB standard option, the retina line is useless to me.

My current cMBP has 1.5Tb of space, and I chew through that fairly regularly.

(OK I'm being petty as external storage could easily take care of my concerns but I prefer internal storage)
Candlelight is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 07:22 PM   #525
Squilly
macrumors 68020
 
Squilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Candlelight View Post
Until there is a 1TB standard option, the retina line is useless to me.

My current cMBP has 1.5Tb of space, and I chew through that fairly regularly.

(OK I'm being petty as external storage could easily take care of my concerns but I prefer internal storage)
That's an HDD though, the disk in a rMBP is an SSD.
__________________
iPhone 5s 16gb Space Gray Sprint
Squilly is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which retina MacBook Pro 13 inch should I buy?high end or low e Runningman123 MacBook Pro 7 May 16, 2014 10:45 AM
Intel to Supply Apple with Special High-End Haswell Processors for MacBook Pro MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 587 Sep 3, 2013 11:27 PM
Apple to Update MacBook Pro and MacBook Air in June 2013 with New Processors, All Retina? MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 436 Jul 15, 2013 01:38 PM
Macbook Air high-end or Macbook Pro retina low-end FatGuy007 MacBook Air 12 Aug 13, 2012 04:00 PM
Apple Updates MacBook Pro and MacBook Air Models With Minor Spec Bumps MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 110 Jul 3, 2012 07:57 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:52 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC