Absolutely love it! The non-bleed on the backlit keyboard is worth it's weight in Gold! Also I like that they eliminated the silly white light-up plastic logo on the back.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tried the new MacBook
- Thread starter MartinAppleGuy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Absolutely love it! The non-bleed on the backlit keyboard is worth it's weight in Gold! Also I like that they eliminated the silly white light-up plastic logo on the back.
I completely agree with the logo on the back. It looks classier and lets the design do the talking instead of the logo.
It is the limited features that is a matter of opinion. There is not much that they can not do.
I was at my local apple store for the first time since the MBs hit the streets. I have to say I am very impressed with them. I've been upfront in stating that the design is gorgeous (but I've been negative regarding the price, performance battery). Playing with it, confirms apple nailed it design wise. The force touch imo is great as is the keyboard. The screen is crisp and easy to read, better in a lot of ways then my SP3. OS X definitely does have better scaling then windows.
I think its still a mistake for apple to only put a single port on the computer and that port is being used for power and data.
In the end, would I buy one, probably not. My SP3 (while I could sell it) handles what I need to get done. I want a light travel companion, running windows is a huge plus insofar as it fulfills my work needs.
I think its still a mistake for apple to only put a single port on the computer and that port is being used for power and data.
In the end, would I buy one, probably not. My SP3 (while I could sell it) handles what I need to get done. I want a light travel companion, running windows is a huge plus insofar as it fulfills my work needs.
I've tried the new MacBook pretty in-depth since I first accidentally stumbled on them when randomly visiting an Apple Store while in NY. Had not heard about them being released so it was a total surprise to me.
The first impression I had was a flashback - and a very positive one at that. I had completely forgotten about the 12" Powerbook G4 that I used to own eons ago, and getting my hands on this new MB suddenly made me realise that I haven't really owned a proper laptop in years...and I miss it.
Since the first MBPs came out, I was one of those "desktop replacement" guys. I only bought 17 inch models, first a core 2 duo then an i7. My principal work is in Logic Pro, so I always wanted the biggest screen real estate and the fastest CPU available at the time. Needless to say, these machines were never really "laptops" to me... They were just workstations that happened to be portable. I would only ever use them set up in a studio or at home - always with an external monitor, external keyboard, mouse, audio interface, hard drives etc. For a few years it was an OK way of working, and still is occasionally useful as a secondary workstation. But as a laptop on a plane or a train? Forget about it.
Nowadays, my main workstation has migrated to a top of the range iMac (not the latest one, but still plenty fast for my work), and instinctively I guess I've tried to fill the laptop-sized hole in my life with an iPad, currently an iPad Air. My 17" i7 MBP is just way too big to ever go anywhere with me, it's even too unwieldy to use as a laptop around the house... So it's pretty much been relegated to the role of home server. I have a huge collection of films and series that I stream from it to the iPad using the Air Video app, and sometimes I'll use the MBP for emailing or internet browsing when the iPad is just too annoying. When I go away, it's just the iPad that makes the trip with me.
But to be honest, I've been feeling more and more strangled by iOS, and while having the iPad for an away machine has been mostly OK, it really is a compromise. So when I first laid eyes on the new rMB, picked one up and realised it was effectively no more cumbersome than the iPad Air in any way, I instantly knew that this machine was precisely what I needed...without having consciously realised it before.
I've been doing all the due diligence to make sure that the new MB is really up to the task of what I'd want... And in all honesty, despite the supposed limitations it has, it just feels perfect for what I need and really has sparked a memory of what I loved about having a 12" PowerBook all those years ago, like a repressed memory coming back. There's no way I would do any Logic work on the MacBook, but then again I never did on my 12" PowerBook either. As a sidekick to my work iMac and my "home server" gigantic 17" laptop, the MacBook makes complete sense. After my actual job, the next main secondary work I do with a computer is maintaining my website (on squarespace). Have tried doing this on the iPad and it is so torturous that it may as well be impossible. My 2010 17" MBP is fine for that task, but like I already said, it's a giant... So if I want to work on my website anywhere but at home, I would have to lug that thing around. And its battery is well beyond needing replacement which I don't see the point of doing since it's always plugged in at home.
Enter the new MacBook.. Have spent a few hours in Apple Stores using the MacBook as if I owned it already. Logged in to my squarespace account, editing pages, tidying up photos in pixelmator, internet browsing with multiple tabs. The MacBook handled it all like a champion, even when I used switch res x to bump it up to 1920x1200 - probably a bit of a ridiculous res to use on a 12 inch screen but surprisingly usable for me. It really handled it all like a breeze, and while I'm under no illusions that these MBs are not powerhouses, it was actually far more responsive and snappy than my 17" MBP i7.
Investigating this a bit further, I found that the geekbench scores for the rMB are actually pretty close to my old MBP (the 2010 ones were only dual core i7s and actually not that fast), and the 1.3 gHz model benches even better than my MBP. So for me, not only will the new rMB be a perfect bona fide laptop to really take anywhere, an experience I've not had for years, but it will also not feel like a step down in performance at all from the last laptop I owned. Even the 1.1 base model machines I've tried for extended periods in-store have performed way better than the numbers make you think, letting me do all the squarespace stuff I do and regular browsing with far more pep than my old MBP. My iMac is another story of course, but I love the thought of having a tiny, truly portable and chic machine that can handle everything I do (bar logic), anywhere I want to do it.
The last test I did was just for interest's sake. Most of you won't know this benchmark, but there is test project made for Logic Pro (evan logic benchmark) which we music guys use to see how much realtime CPU grunt we can get out of a machine. Basically it is a project full of identical tracks all with realtime plug in effects on them, and you un-mute tracks until your computer coughs up and can no longer play the song. So, even the base model rMB manages to play a significantly higher number of tracks than my 2010 top of the line MacBook Pro. OK this is not really high praise I know... But considering that only a couple of years ago, I was happy to use that machine not just as a portable but as a _desktop replacement_, it really puts the usability of the new MacBook into perspective for me.
The only downsides for me are that they're a little pricey and even though I've already gotten used to it in my head, I will still miss MagSafe I think. Got used to the new keyboard pretty fast, don't completely love it but am pretty sure after a while I won't be phased by it at all.
Overall, it's weird. For a few years now I've felt like I have been way way off whatever Apple's target market is. Have felt like whoever they are making stuff for, while I still mostly like it, it's not made for me. The apple watch for example, doesn't interest me at all, not in the slightest. But with the new MacBook, I'm shocked to feel like they hit the nail on the head, at least for me personally and the one use-case I forgot I even wanted. After stumbling along trying to fill the ultra portable gap in my working/computing life for years with an iPad, I'm really excited that there's now a real computer (that I actually want) which will slide on like a glove for this role.
That's my take on it so far... Still haven't placed my order but I think it's only a matter of time...
The first impression I had was a flashback - and a very positive one at that. I had completely forgotten about the 12" Powerbook G4 that I used to own eons ago, and getting my hands on this new MB suddenly made me realise that I haven't really owned a proper laptop in years...and I miss it.
Since the first MBPs came out, I was one of those "desktop replacement" guys. I only bought 17 inch models, first a core 2 duo then an i7. My principal work is in Logic Pro, so I always wanted the biggest screen real estate and the fastest CPU available at the time. Needless to say, these machines were never really "laptops" to me... They were just workstations that happened to be portable. I would only ever use them set up in a studio or at home - always with an external monitor, external keyboard, mouse, audio interface, hard drives etc. For a few years it was an OK way of working, and still is occasionally useful as a secondary workstation. But as a laptop on a plane or a train? Forget about it.
Nowadays, my main workstation has migrated to a top of the range iMac (not the latest one, but still plenty fast for my work), and instinctively I guess I've tried to fill the laptop-sized hole in my life with an iPad, currently an iPad Air. My 17" i7 MBP is just way too big to ever go anywhere with me, it's even too unwieldy to use as a laptop around the house... So it's pretty much been relegated to the role of home server. I have a huge collection of films and series that I stream from it to the iPad using the Air Video app, and sometimes I'll use the MBP for emailing or internet browsing when the iPad is just too annoying. When I go away, it's just the iPad that makes the trip with me.
But to be honest, I've been feeling more and more strangled by iOS, and while having the iPad for an away machine has been mostly OK, it really is a compromise. So when I first laid eyes on the new rMB, picked one up and realised it was effectively no more cumbersome than the iPad Air in any way, I instantly knew that this machine was precisely what I needed...without having consciously realised it before.
I've been doing all the due diligence to make sure that the new MB is really up to the task of what I'd want... And in all honesty, despite the supposed limitations it has, it just feels perfect for what I need and really has sparked a memory of what I loved about having a 12" PowerBook all those years ago, like a repressed memory coming back. There's no way I would do any Logic work on the MacBook, but then again I never did on my 12" PowerBook either. As a sidekick to my work iMac and my "home server" gigantic 17" laptop, the MacBook makes complete sense. After my actual job, the next main secondary work I do with a computer is maintaining my website (on squarespace). Have tried doing this on the iPad and it is so torturous that it may as well be impossible. My 2010 17" MBP is fine for that task, but like I already said, it's a giant... So if I want to work on my website anywhere but at home, I would have to lug that thing around. And its battery is well beyond needing replacement which I don't see the point of doing since it's always plugged in at home.
Enter the new MacBook.. Have spent a few hours in Apple Stores using the MacBook as if I owned it already. Logged in to my squarespace account, editing pages, tidying up photos in pixelmator, internet browsing with multiple tabs. The MacBook handled it all like a champion, even when I used switch res x to bump it up to 1920x1200 - probably a bit of a ridiculous res to use on a 12 inch screen but surprisingly usable for me. It really handled it all like a breeze, and while I'm under no illusions that these MBs are not powerhouses, it was actually far more responsive and snappy than my 17" MBP i7.
Investigating this a bit further, I found that the geekbench scores for the rMB are actually pretty close to my old MBP (the 2010 ones were only dual core i7s and actually not that fast), and the 1.3 gHz model benches even better than my MBP. So for me, not only will the new rMB be a perfect bona fide laptop to really take anywhere, an experience I've not had for years, but it will also not feel like a step down in performance at all from the last laptop I owned. Even the 1.1 base model machines I've tried for extended periods in-store have performed way better than the numbers make you think, letting me do all the squarespace stuff I do and regular browsing with far more pep than my old MBP. My iMac is another story of course, but I love the thought of having a tiny, truly portable and chic machine that can handle everything I do (bar logic), anywhere I want to do it.
The last test I did was just for interest's sake. Most of you won't know this benchmark, but there is test project made for Logic Pro (evan logic benchmark) which we music guys use to see how much realtime CPU grunt we can get out of a machine. Basically it is a project full of identical tracks all with realtime plug in effects on them, and you un-mute tracks until your computer coughs up and can no longer play the song. So, even the base model rMB manages to play a significantly higher number of tracks than my 2010 top of the line MacBook Pro. OK this is not really high praise I know... But considering that only a couple of years ago, I was happy to use that machine not just as a portable but as a _desktop replacement_, it really puts the usability of the new MacBook into perspective for me.
The only downsides for me are that they're a little pricey and even though I've already gotten used to it in my head, I will still miss MagSafe I think. Got used to the new keyboard pretty fast, don't completely love it but am pretty sure after a while I won't be phased by it at all.
Overall, it's weird. For a few years now I've felt like I have been way way off whatever Apple's target market is. Have felt like whoever they are making stuff for, while I still mostly like it, it's not made for me. The apple watch for example, doesn't interest me at all, not in the slightest. But with the new MacBook, I'm shocked to feel like they hit the nail on the head, at least for me personally and the one use-case I forgot I even wanted. After stumbling along trying to fill the ultra portable gap in my working/computing life for years with an iPad, I'm really excited that there's now a real computer (that I actually want) which will slide on like a glove for this role.
That's my take on it so far... Still haven't placed my order but I think it's only a matter of time...
Last edited:
Thanks! I just wish someone would hurry up and do a comprehensive in-depth review of the 1.3 gHz model... including reliable stats on the rumours we're hearing that it gets better battery life etc. Because that's really the machine I'm interested in. The way I see it is, I want the bigger storage space no matter what, and so spending approx 150 bucks extra doesn't seem too outrageous if it future-proofs the machine a little more. But, if the opposite is true and the 1.3's actually run hotter, chew through battery and are no faster at all in practice... then a 1.2/512 is what I'll get.
I can wait till the information starts becoming available though, have learned over the years to resist the urge to impulse buy!
I can wait till the information starts becoming available though, have learned over the years to resist the urge to impulse buy!
btw, an addendum re the "evan logic benchmark" I ran on the new MacBook:
In case you read that and thought, yeah well that's obviously just because the new machines have super fast PCI/SSD storage with way better read/write speeds than MacBook Pros from 2010... this test actually does not use any audio files at all. It's all using software-generated synth instruments and software plug ins, so it's really a CPU stress test and nothing to do with disc speed, or lack thereof...
So again, while it's not earth-shattering news, it does give you some perspective to think that a 1.1 core M wipes the floor with a 2.66 dual-core i7 which was the very top-of-the-line machine not that many years ago. At least in terms of real-world usability it makes a pretty good case for me.
The next (probably pointless) test I would like to do is try out FCP X on the rMB. I use it occasionally and in reality, video work would be something I'd only do on my iMac or better. But that said, I've made some very VFX-heavy music videos using FCP X on my 2010 i7 MBP before I got the iMac. It wasn't the most fluid experience imaginable but I don't remember feeling like it was unusable on that machine. So I have a feeling that for the limited Final Cut work I do (never 4K, only ever 1080p max), the rMB might actually also be surprisingly usable...
In case you read that and thought, yeah well that's obviously just because the new machines have super fast PCI/SSD storage with way better read/write speeds than MacBook Pros from 2010... this test actually does not use any audio files at all. It's all using software-generated synth instruments and software plug ins, so it's really a CPU stress test and nothing to do with disc speed, or lack thereof...
So again, while it's not earth-shattering news, it does give you some perspective to think that a 1.1 core M wipes the floor with a 2.66 dual-core i7 which was the very top-of-the-line machine not that many years ago. At least in terms of real-world usability it makes a pretty good case for me.
The next (probably pointless) test I would like to do is try out FCP X on the rMB. I use it occasionally and in reality, video work would be something I'd only do on my iMac or better. But that said, I've made some very VFX-heavy music videos using FCP X on my 2010 i7 MBP before I got the iMac. It wasn't the most fluid experience imaginable but I don't remember feeling like it was unusable on that machine. So I have a feeling that for the limited Final Cut work I do (never 4K, only ever 1080p max), the rMB might actually also be surprisingly usable...
Or in reality, Netbooks were defined by 10" screens, Atom processors, 1GB of RAM and 160GB HDD, most of which was stipulated by Microsoft's criteria for cheap Windows licensing. Netbook != small laptop.
Only 30? I was able to get 32 on a 1.1 machine... 
But there are a few settings you need to check:
In audio preferences, you need to check what the buffer is set to. For my test I set it to 256. Lower buffer settings (128, 64 etc) make the CPU work harder. Most people use 512 on slower computers to get decent performance.
You also need to make sure that no track is in active play mode because if a virtual instrument track is active and ready to be played in real time, a huge chunk of CPU cycles are reserved for that. If the "rec" light is on for any track, turn it off.
Lastly you need to be patient - when you're pushing the CPU to the limit in Logic Pro, you need to try several times (hit stop, wait a while, then hit play again, then repeat this over and over) because often logic will have trouble at first being able to play it.. But after a few tries, it will manage to loop.
Oh and one more thing, check what the multiprocessor support setting is in audio prefs. Leave it on automatic or try forcing it to use 4 threads which might work better...
Mais en tout cas si le 1,3 n'arrive qu'à jouer 30 pistes par rapport au 32 que j'ai eu hier sur un 1,1 ce serait assez décevant!!
But there are a few settings you need to check:
In audio preferences, you need to check what the buffer is set to. For my test I set it to 256. Lower buffer settings (128, 64 etc) make the CPU work harder. Most people use 512 on slower computers to get decent performance.
You also need to make sure that no track is in active play mode because if a virtual instrument track is active and ready to be played in real time, a huge chunk of CPU cycles are reserved for that. If the "rec" light is on for any track, turn it off.
Lastly you need to be patient - when you're pushing the CPU to the limit in Logic Pro, you need to try several times (hit stop, wait a while, then hit play again, then repeat this over and over) because often logic will have trouble at first being able to play it.. But after a few tries, it will manage to loop.
Oh and one more thing, check what the multiprocessor support setting is in audio prefs. Leave it on automatic or try forcing it to use 4 threads which might work better...
Mais en tout cas si le 1,3 n'arrive qu'à jouer 30 pistes par rapport au 32 que j'ai eu hier sur un 1,1 ce serait assez décevant!!
Hum very interesting !!! I ve check all the settings and they are all the same as you. I need to test several time before it work with 35. But it's not stable, sometimes it's work and sometimes not. So i see you are French (me too), and if you 've read this test : https://www.mac4ever.com/dossiers/100848_macbook-retina-12-2015-le-test
The 1.3 option is not a good thing ?
(33 is stable when i force the 4 threads but i can't go higher)
The 1.3 option is not a good thing ?
(33 is stable when i force the 4 threads but i can't go higher)
Last edited:
Yep I read that mac4ever article which is part of what has made me hesitate re the 1.3. But since then I've read other info about the 1.3 that makes a case for getting one... Benchmarks are a weird thing and even harder to judge when there is hyperthreading and turbo boost in the mix. There are so many factors that come into play, it's hard to know what translates to overall better performance in the real world. Different apps produce different CPU use dynamics so what might look like an obvious win/lose in a simple speed test might not really show how things work in reality if the whole usage profile is averaged out.
For example, I've read that the 1.1 and 1.2 are the same series of core M, one being set to a higher clock speed than the other. But the 1.3 is a different series of chip. So in that case, a 1.2 might regularly get hotter and therefore throttle down more often because it's a lower-spec part being pushed harder. The 1.3 might be a slightly higher-spec part running at a conservative speed for what it could do, so its thermal performance might be better in the long run. This could mean that yes - in a short CPU test like this one in logic, the 1.3 might be just barely faster. But if you were working with it all day, it might stay faster for longer because it never overheats, whereas the others might start to pull back on speed after a few hours of continuous use.
It's really hard to say and also to be honest, not all that important when we're talking about a machine that's not about high performance anyway. I am more interested in finding out if the claims that the 1.3 gets better battery life are true, because that would be an actual advantage worth paying for.
As for your 35 track result.. That seems more or less where it should be. On the 1.1 machine, the 32 track limit I hit was not reliable either. It sometimes managed to play it in a loop, but sometimes did not. 33 tracks I couldn't get to play at all for even one cycle. So 32 was really the absolute best I could muster. On a 1.3, maybe with tweaking some more settings you could hope to get a couple more tracks but overall that result sounds about right. FYI on my 2010 2.66 i7 MacBook Pro, I can barely manage 25 tracks...
Puis en fait non, suis pas français mais j'habite Paris depuis un petit moment maintenant...
For example, I've read that the 1.1 and 1.2 are the same series of core M, one being set to a higher clock speed than the other. But the 1.3 is a different series of chip. So in that case, a 1.2 might regularly get hotter and therefore throttle down more often because it's a lower-spec part being pushed harder. The 1.3 might be a slightly higher-spec part running at a conservative speed for what it could do, so its thermal performance might be better in the long run. This could mean that yes - in a short CPU test like this one in logic, the 1.3 might be just barely faster. But if you were working with it all day, it might stay faster for longer because it never overheats, whereas the others might start to pull back on speed after a few hours of continuous use.
It's really hard to say and also to be honest, not all that important when we're talking about a machine that's not about high performance anyway. I am more interested in finding out if the claims that the 1.3 gets better battery life are true, because that would be an actual advantage worth paying for.
As for your 35 track result.. That seems more or less where it should be. On the 1.1 machine, the 32 track limit I hit was not reliable either. It sometimes managed to play it in a loop, but sometimes did not. 33 tracks I couldn't get to play at all for even one cycle. So 32 was really the absolute best I could muster. On a 1.3, maybe with tweaking some more settings you could hope to get a couple more tracks but overall that result sounds about right. FYI on my 2010 2.66 i7 MacBook Pro, I can barely manage 25 tracks...
Puis en fait non, suis pas français mais j'habite Paris depuis un petit moment maintenant...
Yep I read that mac4ever article which is part of what has made me hesitate re the 1.3. But since then I've read other info about the 1.3 that makes a case for getting one... Benchmarks are a weird thing and even harder to judge when there is hyperthreading and turbo boost in the mix. There are so many factors that come into play, it's hard to know what translates to overall better performance in the real world. Different apps produce different CPU use dynamics so what might look like an obvious win/lose in a simple speed test might not really show how things work in reality if the whole usage profile is averaged out.
For example, I've read that the 1.1 and 1.2 are the same series of core M, one being set to a higher clock speed than the other. But the 1.3 is a different series of chip. So in that case, a 1.2 might regularly get hotter and therefore throttle down more often because it's a lower-spec part being pushed harder. The 1.3 might be a slightly higher-spec part running at a conservative speed for what it could do, so its thermal performance might be better in the long run. This could mean that yes - in a short CPU test like this one in logic, the 1.3 might be just barely faster. But if you were working with it all day, it might stay faster for longer because it never overheats, whereas the others might start to pull back on speed after a few hours of continuous use.
It's really hard to say and also to be honest, not all that important when we're talking about a machine that's not about high performance anyway. I am more interested in finding out if the claims that the 1.3 gets better battery life are true, because that would be an actual advantage worth paying for.
As for your 35 track result.. That seems more or less where it should be. On the 1.1 machine, the 32 track limit I hit was not reliable either. It sometimes managed to play it in a loop, but sometimes did not. 33 tracks I couldn't get to play at all for even one cycle. So 32 was really the absolute best I could muster. On a 1.3, maybe with tweaking some more settings you could hope to get a couple more tracks but overall that result sounds about right. FYI on my 2010 2.66 i7 MacBook Pro, I can barely manage 25 tracks...
Puis en fait non, suis pas français mais j'habite Paris depuis un petit moment maintenant...
31 tracks on my late-2011 13" macbook pro. it's not great, stalls a lot on bigger projects. so, much as i want an rMb, a new macbook pro is a better bet for logic...
Hello,
I've read that Mac4Ever article too, and I sill hesitate to keep my order for 1,1 or 1,3. I've read here that the 1,3 permit better battery life and is a little better, but Mac4Ever says its useless option.
I ordered (1,3 and 1,1) before the price rise and I have Apple On Campus reduction. I will choose after the wwdc (any changes about the OS?) but it's a difficult choice.
I've read that Mac4Ever article too, and I sill hesitate to keep my order for 1,1 or 1,3. I've read here that the 1,3 permit better battery life and is a little better, but Mac4Ever says its useless option.
I ordered (1,3 and 1,1) before the price rise and I have Apple On Campus reduction. I will choose after the wwdc (any changes about the OS?) but it's a difficult choice.
Yep obviously agreed.. Anyone looking for a portable machine for Logic should not really be considering a rMB, there are far better choices for that purpose. For me, I would want nothing less than a quad core, minimum.
However, note that the evan benchmark score I got on the base model rMB is almost identical to what you got on your 2011 13" macbook pro. So it's not utterly unusable.
For me, I can think of only one thing I'd run logic on the rMB for: If I was doing a small recording session with a vocalist or a couple of mics for acoustic instruments, something like that. In that case it would be a nice convenience to be able to sit near the musicians with the laptop and not have to worry at all about fan noise bleeding into the mics. But that's about it.
I have to say I remain a little sceptical of the mac4ever article. I mean, I don't deny that they ran certain tests, looked at the results and were surprised to see that they got slower numbers for the 1.3 where you would not expect it.
But I wonder if this doesn't say more about the risks of trusting myopic speed tests than anything else..? I mean, Apple have obviously put a fair bit of work into the new MacBook and it strikes me as very strange that they would offer a top-tier CPU upgrade at increased cost, in the knowledge that it was actually slower. They're not the kind of manufacturer who just chooses some parts off a shelf, slaps them in a box and sells them, trusting blindly what the parts supplier's specs say. They surely expect a great deal of scrutiny on every machine they release, especially a controversial one, so I have to believe that they saw a benefit (however slight) to offering a 1.3 GHz upgrade. If not, it's a serious oversight on their part...
Yes very difficult choice ! In the benchmark, we can see a good difference between the 1.1 and 1.3 (similar to a 2011 macbook air vs 2014 macbook air). But i can read in some blog that the benchmark test are not a good thing to see the performance between 2 mac.
In the few review i can read, the 1.3 is 5 - 10 % faster than the 1.1. Puff i don't know what to do and i don't want to have regret !!
In the few review i can read, the 1.3 is 5 - 10 % faster than the 1.1. Puff i don't know what to do and i don't want to have regret !!
Yep, exactly, I hope we can stay confident and that Apple do it right.
Got the same feelings, but I think we could wait for new OS (or update) at wwdc or later, that can change everything.
Because in a second article, Mac4Ever says there really is a difference with Windows on the rMB. That's why the problem is Yosemite and the way to optimise...
I wait next monday but atm I choose 1,3 for these reasons (and I put my order before the price rise in France, 1,3 Ghz is 50€ more now).
Last edited:
Yep you don't want to make the wrong choice... especially not in France where Apple stuff is way more expensive than in the US. I just checked - a fully specced up MacBook (1.3/512) in France costs approximately $US2160 as opposed to just $US1750 in the states....!
Yep, exactly, I hope we can stay confident and that Apple do it right.
I will take 256 it's enough for my purpose. I got 12% with Apple On Campus program or 8% with BNP bank, I will phone Apple to try to cumulate but I'm pretty sure I can not. Btw it's still expensive and for a student 1,3 option is to be considered.