Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Notebooks > MacBook Air

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 4, 2013, 02:32 AM   #1
2IS
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
How many will consider 13" rMBP if next MBA doesn't have upgraded display?

Just curious how many are in my boat. I currently have a 2010 13" MBA and looking to upgrade once Haswell makes its way into Apple's lineup. I've been pretty happy with my 2010, it's my first Mac and the longest I've ever owned a laptop. But after playing around with a few windows based 13" 1080p IPS ultra books, coming back to the MBA screen feels really sub-par compared to whats currently available. I'd like to stick with the thin/light form factor of the MBA, but may have to abandon that plan if the display doesn't get an upgrade. Doesn't necessarily have to be "Retina" though it would be nice, but higher resolution and most certainly IPS is a must have for my next machine.
2IS is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 03:41 AM   #2
ftored
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
If the rMbp was more upgradable than MBair i would consider it. But as it is not, i prefer the form factor of the air while the screen is very good for my use.

Guess it depends on your line of business. As i just use it for word processing and internet when not using external screen, the screen is sufficient enough for me. I find the resolution of the Air sufficient enough for a 13" screen.
__________________
15" MacBook Pro 2.4GHz R.I.P ; 12" Powerbook 1GHZ 1.25 GB Ram ; Ipod mini 4GB R.I.P; Ipod Classic 80GB
ftored is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 10:09 AM   #3
tecknik1
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: HCM Vietnam
I have the 2011 Air and looking to upgrade this year for a better screen due to my eyes are not what they used to be and if the new Air doesn't have a better offering in the screen reso I well switch to the 13 RMBP besides the 2014 is supposed to be slightly thinner.
tecknik1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 10:20 AM   #4
unknownfps
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
This is the situation I'm in right now.
But I will probably go with the 2013 MBA anyways, and just refresh it when rMBA comes around (which I hopefully will be new year).
unknownfps is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 10:29 AM   #5
merkinmuffley
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
If the rumors for the new Air bear fruit, I won't be buying.
merkinmuffley is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 10:32 AM   #6
Cheffy Dave
macrumors 68020
 
Cheffy Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sunny Florida, on the Gulf Coast in Homosassa Fl
nope, way to heavy
__________________
lotsa "stuff"
Cheffy Dave is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 10:35 AM   #7
B...
macrumors 68000
 
B...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheffy Dave View Post
nope, way to heavy
Was that sarcasm? 3/5 of a pound more.
B... is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 10:42 AM   #8
CristobalHuet
macrumors 65816
 
CristobalHuet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Montreal
I'm in the same boat as the OP - loving my 2010 Air, still going strong, but that Retina display is something else. For all that's incredible about an SSD boosting performance, my Core 2 Duo is starting to show its age in Photoshop and Final Cut these days.

If the Air doesn't get a Retina display - which isn't looking likely - I will strongly consider a rMBP if the weight is right. Intrigued at the rumour of a slimmed-down rMBP. If that means significant enough weight loss, I could stomach moving up from the perfect form factor of the Air.
__________________
13" MacBook Air 2.13Ghz Core 2 Duo/4GB RAM/256GB SSD (2010) + 24" Apple LED Cinema Display
32GB iPhone 5, Black
64GB Wi-Fi iPad mini, Black
CristobalHuet is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 10:55 AM   #9
riverwater
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
I have a 2011 MBA, I will not buy a new MBA unless it has a retina screen.
__________________
2012 MacBook Pro 15 retina, 2.7GHz i7, 512GB SSD, 16GB RAM
2011 Macbook Air 13, i7 1.8GHz, 4GB RAM, 256GB SSD
2010 Mac Pro, 2x2.93GHz 6-Core, ATI5870, 32GB RAM, 27" ACD
riverwater is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 11:12 AM   #10
oneMadRssn
macrumors 65816
 
oneMadRssn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Boston, MA
I don't really see the point of a 13" rMBA. It's over half a pound heavier than the 13" MBA, but offers only slightly faster CPU and a high-res screen. In many graphics tests, that high-res screen made it score worse than a 13" MBA in benchmarks. To me, it seems that for "Pro" users, the 13" MBA is the better choice among 13" laptops (the 15" rMBP being the obvious best choice).

If the 13" has discrete graphics, that would be another story. But it doesn't. It doesn't even have more RAM than the MBA. It's just heavier, in some cases slower, and has a pretty screen. All that bother for a whopping $300 more.

I think if my priority was to get a pretty screen and use the computer for graphics, I would opt for the 15" rMBP (the next-revision anyway, I try to stay away from early rev apple products). For any less computationaly-expensive tasks, I would choose a MBA. The 13" rMBP is sort of a pointless machine meant for no one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tecknik1 View Post
I have the 2011 Air and looking to upgrade this year for a better screen due to my eyes are not what they used to be and if the new Air doesn't have a better offering in the screen reso I well switch to the 13 RMBP besides the 2014 is supposed to be slightly thinner.
If your eye's aren't what they used to be, then you wouldn't even notice that the pixels are smaller. Poor eye-sight means you need to make the text-size larger, or in general lower the resolution/scaling to make everything larger. A good screen won't make up for bad eye-sight.
__________________
2012 Mac Mini 2.3ghz i7 Quad Core 4GB RAM 128GB Samsung 840 Pro SSD 1TB Spinner | iPhone 5 (Sprint) 16GB
oneMadRssn is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 02:19 PM   #11
old-wiz
macrumors 604
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: West Suburban Boston Ma
I wouldn't buy or even consider an MBA no matter what screen - the trackpad never worked well for me. I bought one, trackpad was bad, they replaced it, still didn't work, apple genius agreed it didn't work right so I said "forget it, I'm going to return it." Never looked back and bought a cMBP. Maybe some MBA models don't have enough room to click the trackpad properly?
old-wiz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 04:42 PM   #12
Cheffy Dave
macrumors 68020
 
Cheffy Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sunny Florida, on the Gulf Coast in Homosassa Fl
Quote:
Originally Posted by B... View Post
Was that sarcasm? 3/5 of a pound more.
You are correct Sir!
__________________
lotsa "stuff"
Cheffy Dave is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 06:16 PM   #13
Mr. RPG
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
I don't think the MBA 2013 even needs a retina display. A new resolution would be fine (which would further increase the dpi)

1920 x 1080 display please Apple?
__________________
Verizon iPhone 5 16 GB Black & Slate
15.4" Macbook Pro with Retina Display (mid-2012) model
Mr. RPG is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 06:34 PM   #14
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneMadRssn View Post
I don't really see the point of a 13" rMBA. It's over half a pound heavier than the 13" MBA, but offers only slightly faster CPU and a high-res screen. In many graphics tests, that high-res screen made it score worse than a 13" MBA in benchmarks. To me, it seems that for "Pro" users, the 13" MBA is the better choice among 13" laptops (the 15" rMBP being the obvious best choice).

If your eye's aren't what they used to be, then you wouldn't even notice that the pixels are smaller. Poor eye-sight means you need to make the text-size larger, or in general lower the resolution/scaling to make everything larger. A good screen won't make up for bad eye-sight.
1. For most people the interesting benchmark is not how fast it can scroll, the benchmark is how good the screen looks when it stands still. 99% of the time the screen contents is mostly unchanged and I don't care how fast the graphics is.

2. Your assumptions what happen when eyesight gets worse are just wrong. You may not notice that the pixels is smaller. But you notice that text is easier to read. With bad eyesight, any improvement in the screen helps.
gnasher729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 06:40 PM   #15
Bear
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sol III - Terra
I don't see the point of the MBA being retina. Right now my choice for a laptop would be between a 13" Air and a 15" Pro. If the Air went Retina, I would probably just be looking at the 15" Pro.
__________________
-----Bear
Bear is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 06:54 PM   #16
tgi
macrumors 6502a
 
tgi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneMadRssn View Post
I don't really see the point of a 13" rMBA. It's over half a pound heavier than the 13" MBA, but offers only slightly faster CPU and a high-res screen. In many graphics tests, that high-res screen made it score worse than a 13" MBA in benchmarks. To me, it seems that for "Pro" users, the 13" MBA is the better choice among 13" laptops (the 15" rMBP being the obvious best choice).

If the 13" has discrete graphics, that would be another story. But it doesn't. It doesn't even have more RAM than the MBA. It's just heavier, in some cases slower, and has a pretty screen. All that bother for a whopping $300 more.
The rMBP has twice as much RAM than a BASE 13" MBA. So faster processor, twice the RAM, HDMI port, and a better display seems well worth $300 imho.

I do agree a dGPU in the rMBP 13" would be awesome though.
tgi is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 02:09 AM   #17
Miat
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. RPG View Post
I don't think the MBA 2013 even needs a retina display. A new resolution would be fine (which would further increase the dpi)

1920 x 1080 display please Apple?
That gives a screen aspect ratio of 1.77.

The 13" MBA has a ratio of 1.6, so to match that the res would need to be 1728 x 1080.

Maybe they could offer a 1080 screen as a BTO upgrade, and keep the current 900 as the standard screen.
Miat is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 02:11 AM   #18
2IS
Thread Starter
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miat View Post
That gives a screen aspect ratio of 1.77.

The 13" MBA has a ratio of 1.6, so to match that the res would need to be 1728 x 1080.

Maybe they could offer a 1080 screen as a BTO upgrade, and keep the current 900 as the standard screen.
1920x1200 would make more sense than 1728x1080 IMO

There's no way they're going to offer two different aspect ratios on the same laptop. Just not the "apple way"
2IS is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 02:15 AM   #19
Lunfai
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
I sold my MBA in order to wait for the rMBP. I wouldn't kept the MBA, but I've decided to spend some of that money for an iPad, whenever that rolls around.
Lunfai is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 02:50 AM   #20
Miat
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2IS View Post
1920x1200 would make more sense than 1728x1080 IMO

There's no way they're going to offer two different aspect ratios on the same laptop. Just not the "apple way"
Sticking an X aspect screen into a Y aspect frame is problematic.

If they switch to 1920 x 1080 in the 13" Air, they get a more vertically compressed 1080 (in order to fit the 1920 width in) and this mismatch wastes precious vertical space in the 1.6 ratio 13" frame, and makes the overall image smaller and text harder to read compared with 1728 x 1080 in the same frame.

To properly fit the 1920 screen they would have to redesign the whole 13" to look like a scaled up version of the 11".

Pretty sure that is not the Apple way.

Only problem with a 1728 x 1080 screen is adapting OS X to use it. I'm sure Apple can manage it, if they choose to. Could be a good long term investment for them to have that aspect ratio fully 1080. Would cover non-retina 13-15" 1.6 ratio screens forever.

Always thought that Apple's choice of 1680 x 1050 res for the hi-res (non-retina) 15" MBPs was a mistake. They should have gone with 1728 x 1080. Full 1080 at a 1.6 aspect ratio.
Miat is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 07:29 AM   #21
zedsdead
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
I will definitely buy a rMBP this time if the display doesn't get at least IPS.

Either way the pro for me is looking more likely, but I want to see what apple does first obviously.
__________________
iMac 27: 3.4 Core i7 Quad, 768gb SSD, 24gb of RAM, 2gb NVIDIA 680mx
rMBP 13: 2.6 Core i5, Iris 5100, 8gb RAM, 512 SSD
iPad Air, iPhone 6, Apple TV, Final Cut X, Logic X, Drobo 5D
zedsdead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 08:21 AM   #22
kazmac
macrumors 68000
 
kazmac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Somewhere in New York Max
Agree completely

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
1. For most people the interesting benchmark is not how fast it can scroll, the benchmark is how good the screen looks when it stands still. 99% of the time the screen contents is mostly unchanged and I don't care how fast the graphics is.

2. Your assumptions what happen when eyesight gets worse are just wrong. You may not notice that the pixels is smaller. But you notice that text is easier to read. With bad eyesight, any improvement in the screen helps.
I agree. I'm nearsighted and the Retina screen is a huge benefit to me. Every time I test one in the Apple store, I am this close to walking out with one for this alone. When I upgrade my iMac, I may very well consider a Retina laptop because I can read it perfectly at varying distances. That would be my main reason to buy a Mac laptop since I use an iPad for portability.
kazmac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 09:41 AM   #23
oneMadRssn
macrumors 65816
 
oneMadRssn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
2. Your assumptions what happen when eyesight gets worse are just wrong. You may not notice that the pixels is smaller. But you notice that text is easier to read. With bad eyesight, any improvement in the screen helps.
I'm not an Optometrist, but I have studied enough optics and physics to get the basic idea of how eyes and eyesight works.

Bad eyesight cannot be corrected by having a better screen. A sharper source image will not correct a defect in eye. For example, I know that nearsightedness is caused by variety of things, but in essense the eye is the slightly wrong shape where the lense is slightly out of line and the focal point becomes in front of retina instead of on it exactly. Blurry is blurry. No screen can fix this. Farsightedness is similar, the shape of the eye or the shape of lense is off a bit, causing difficulty focusing on near things. Again, if your eye has trouble focusing, the screen won't help.

The only thing that computer can do to help is to increase the size or scale of the text itself. Larger things are easier to read when your vision is slightly blurry. Having more pixels has nothing to do with this, and in some cases actually makes text smaller thus worse for those with poor vision.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by kazmac View Post
I agree. I'm nearsighted and the Retina screen is a huge benefit to me. Every time I test one in the Apple store, I am this close to walking out with one for this alone. When I upgrade my iMac, I may very well consider a Retina laptop because I can read it perfectly at varying distances. That would be my main reason to buy a Mac laptop since I use an iPad for portability.
Are you sure it's the retina display or the fact that the default setting causes the text to be larger than on an iMac? Take a ruler next time, open up Word and type something in 12pt font on both computers. Measure with the ruler and compare. The scaling on a retina display makes the 12pt text display larger than on a the default iMac resolution.
__________________
2012 Mac Mini 2.3ghz i7 Quad Core 4GB RAM 128GB Samsung 840 Pro SSD 1TB Spinner | iPhone 5 (Sprint) 16GB
oneMadRssn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 09:53 AM   #24
kwijbo
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miat View Post
Sticking an X aspect screen into a Y aspect frame is problematic.

If they switch to 1920 x 1080 in the 13" Air, they get a more vertically compressed 1080 (in order to fit the 1920 width in) and this mismatch wastes precious vertical space in the 1.6 ratio 13" frame, and makes the overall image smaller and text harder to read compared with 1728 x 1080 in the same frame.

To properly fit the 1920 screen they would have to redesign the whole 13" to look like a scaled up version of the 11".

Pretty sure that is not the Apple way.

Only problem with a 1728 x 1080 screen is adapting OS X to use it. I'm sure Apple can manage it, if they choose to. Could be a good long term investment for them to have that aspect ratio fully 1080. Would cover non-retina 13-15" 1.6 ratio screens forever.

Always thought that Apple's choice of 1680 x 1050 res for the hi-res (non-retina) 15" MBPs was a mistake. They should have gone with 1728 x 1080. Full 1080 at a 1.6 aspect ratio.
...1920x1200 is a 1.6 aspect ratio...

Besides, what's the significance of going to 1080 pixels in height when you'd still have to scale any HD content? Without 1920 px width you'd end up with black bars on top and bottom (strictly relating to media).

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by oneMadRssn View Post
I'm not an Optometrist, but I have studied enough optics and physics to get the basic idea of how eyes and eyesight works.

Bad eyesight cannot be corrected by having a better screen. A sharper source image will not correct a defect in eye. For example, I know that nearsightedness is caused by variety of things, but in essense the eye is the slightly wrong shape where the lense is slightly out of line and the focal point becomes in front of retina instead of on it exactly. Blurry is blurry. No screen can fix this. Farsightedness is similar, the shape of the eye or the shape of lense is off a bit, causing difficulty focusing on near things. Again, if your eye has trouble focusing, the screen won't help.

The only thing that computer can do to help is to increase the size or scale of the text itself. Larger things are easier to read when your vision is slightly blurry. Having more pixels has nothing to do with this, and in some cases actually makes text smaller thus worse for those with poor vision.
I don't think kazmac/gnasher729 were trying to infer that it would correct vision, more so that it would help reduce the strain on their eyes due to the characters/objects being more easily identified due to the higher resolution. Here's some supporting info on this:

http://interchangeproject.org/2013/0...-more-reading/
kwijbo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 12:02 PM   #25
2IS
Thread Starter
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miat View Post
Sticking an X aspect screen into a Y aspect frame is problematic.

If they switch to 1920 x 1080 in the 13" Air, they get a more vertically compressed 1080 (in order to fit the 1920 width in) and this mismatch wastes precious vertical space in the 1.6 ratio 13" frame, and makes the overall image smaller and text harder to read compared with 1728 x 1080 in the same frame.

To properly fit the 1920 screen they would have to redesign the whole 13" to look like a scaled up version of the 11".

Pretty sure that is not the Apple way.

Only problem with a 1728 x 1080 screen is adapting OS X to use it. I'm sure Apple can manage it, if they choose to. Could be a good long term investment for them to have that aspect ratio fully 1080. Would cover non-retina 13-15" 1.6 ratio screens forever.

Always thought that Apple's choice of 1680 x 1050 res for the hi-res (non-retina) 15" MBPs was a mistake. They should have gone with 1728 x 1080. Full 1080 at a 1.6 aspect ratio.
I said 1920x1200, not 1080 That gives it the same aspect ratio as it currently has and 1920x1200 is a more common resolution than 1728 not to mention a higher resolution.
2IS is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Notebooks > MacBook Air

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Has anyone upgraded their 13" rMBP SSD? gametime10 MacBook Pro 8 Nov 27, 2012 10:06 AM
Bare Feats tests 13" rMBP vs 15" rMBP vs 13" MBA Idefix MacBook Pro 11 Oct 27, 2012 10:28 PM
Dilemma: Fully Upgraded MBA 13" or potential rMBP 13"? nick0 MacBook Air 16 Sep 27, 2012 08:42 AM
Have you recently upgraded from a 13" MacBook to the new rMBP? tmanto02 MacBook Pro 13 Aug 8, 2012 02:57 PM
RMBP doesn't display full desktop when connected to hd tv miles400 MacBook Pro 3 Aug 2, 2012 11:45 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:10 AM.

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

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