Anybody not like the retina line?

[BlockEight88]

For years people whined about a redesigned MacBook pro. Well everyone got their wish in 2012. I am wondering now since the retina macbook pro has been pretty much standard, if we all like it or not?

I do not care for the retina line myself because:

-Retina resolution = 1440x900 workspace
-Both the 13" and 15" 2013 models seem to have lower brightness compared to the 2012 MBP
-Not user accessible
many, many defects with screens (the user shouldn't have to worry about which make they may or may not get)
-Anti-glare anyone? I know I preferred the 2012 macbook with an anti-glare screen. Seemed very bright and overall a very nice screen, despite being a non-ips panel. The retinas do have decreased glare, but nowhere to the level where the anti-glare screens had

As much as someone of us don't want to admit it, we are stuck with the retina line if we ever need a new Apple powerhouse laptop. They are not bad by any means. I just do not like them and am wondering if anyone else feels the same. I wish the unibody macbook pro was still available with a haswell/broadwell processor.

 

[Robster3]

For years people whined about a redesigned MacBook pro. Well everyone got their wish in 2012. I am wondering now since the retina macbook pro has been pretty much standard, if we all like it or not?

I do not care for the retina line myself because:

-Retina resolution = 1440x900 workspace
-Both the 13" and 15" 2013 models seem to have lower brightness compared to the 2012 MBP
-Not user accessible
many, many defects with screens (the user shouldn't have to worry about which make they may or may not get)
-Anti-glare anyone? I know I preferred the 2012 macbook with an anti-glare screen. Seemed very bright and overall a very nice screen, despite being a non-ips panel. The retinas do have decreased glare, but nowhere to the level where the anti-glare screens had

As much as someone of us don't want to admit it, we are stuck with the retina line if we ever need a new Apple powerhouse laptop. They are not bad by any means. I just do not like them and am wondering if anyone else feels the same. I wish the unibody macbook pro was still available with a haswell/broadwell processor.

Get a iMac and you will know what glare is like, we have a 13 and 15 and brightness is about 75%, no problem.

 

[QuarterSwede]

Get a iMac and you will know what glare is like, we have a 13 and 15 and brightness is about 75%, no problem.

Gotta agree. I use a MacBook Pro in a live time sensitive setting (when it actually matters) and I've yet to have it cause an issue to where I couldn't do my job. It's bright enough to drown out any reflections, at least for my eyes.

I really like the retina line. Even though the default useable space is 1400x600 you can still force the resolution to go higher. Even the Display settings will let you go smaller to a point. Want pixel for pixel? There's an app for that. This past revision has been great and improved performance greatly. PCIe SSD's, Thunderbolt 2, and a quick GPU. It's great.

 

[mademan118]

I just wished that the retina monitor had its own GPU to power it. Plugging in extra monitors really stresses the 13". With me running 2 27" monitors + various applications, the 13" rMBP can barely handle. Want to go past 2 extra monitors? Good luck and I think that its somewhat risky

 

[raptor402]

For years people whined about a redesigned MacBook pro. Well everyone got their wish in 2012. I am wondering now since the retina macbook pro has been pretty much standard, if we all like it or not?

I do not care for the retina line myself because:

-Retina resolution = 1440x900 workspace
-Both the 13" and 15" 2013 models seem to have lower brightness compared to the 2012 MBP
-Not user accessible
many, many defects with screens (the user shouldn't have to worry about which make they may or may not get)
-Anti-glare anyone? I know I preferred the 2012 macbook with an anti-glare screen. Seemed very bright and overall a very nice screen, despite being a non-ips panel. The retinas do have decreased glare, but nowhere to the level where the anti-glare screens had

As much as someone of us don't want to admit it, we are stuck with the retina line if we ever need a new Apple powerhouse laptop. They are not bad by any means. I just do not like them and am wondering if anyone else feels the same. I wish the unibody macbook pro was still available with a haswell/broadwell processor.

I agree with you on most counts. The 1440*900 active display area was the biggest let down. The resolutions should have been 3360*2100. My father upscales his 13" and 15" rMBPs to 1440*900 and 1680*1050 respectively but it's really not that sharp. However, I have noticed a silver lining: when using the 15" rMBP on my desk, I switch the resolution to the full 2880*1800. This gives me gigantic working area. I have a habit of using multiple windows at the same time so it's ideal for me. Anything higher and I wouldn't have been able to do that. Furthermore, while the upscaled resolutions do leave much to desire in terms of sharpness, the ability to actually change active working area on the go is quite handy.

I have always preferred glossy displays. In fact, most MBP buyers stick to glossy displays.

Regards
Raptor

 

[TechZeke]

Maybe it's because my old PC windows laptop was a 17" behemoth with a 1440x900 display, and the my parents at the time had 13" white MacBooks with 1280x800. so 1440x900 resolution on a 15" display seemed more than enough for me. I didn't even notice until I got on the forum. If I really need extra space, I'd just hook it up to a monitor or use my iMac. I've never felt like the real estate was too little and it seems like a sweet spot for me.

Anyway, my main issue with the retinas is the lack of upgradable RAM and SSDs and the lame excuse they called a price drop, when they really just cut the specs of the system to meet a new price.

 

[maflynn]

I think the lack of an optical drive, the inability of performing some upgrades the glued in battery and to a small extent the glossy screen has people avoiding the rMBP.

Here's my $.02,
I've not used the optical drive in a long time, so its removal was no big deal.
I've rarely upgraded my laptop, I usually keep it three years so when its ready for more storage (or even ram), I'm itching for a new laptop anyways.
The battery and screen do not bother me, Ill take it in for servicing when I have too for the battery and I've used a glossy screen now for some time, its a non issue for me.

 

[accountforit]

It's by no means perfect. As I have stated before, the screen is the least appealing feature. I, too, hate the resolution and how you don't get the clearest screen unless you use the resolution Apple suggests. On top of that, there are numerous websites that have blurry features. It's almost like you get half the benefit of the screen.

Now the form factor, SSD speed, and battery life are outstanding.

For me, I am considering returning mine. I found out yesterday that the 13" processor is sluggish with the most basic picture editing. I use preview a lot to edit pictures and it is very sluggish. This has proven to me that geekbench doesn't mean jack. This 13" retina scores almost as high as my 2011 iMac quad core, yet my iMac is smooth as day at editing photos.

 

[MattMJB0188]

I agree with the OP. I also find the anti-glare screen on the 2012 mbp to provide a better picture. Just seems nicer to look at. But thats me.

 

[b0fh666]

it's OK, but i'd love a sata HDD bay alongside with the pciE storage thing... in 13" form fator preferrably!

when my 2012 reaches its EOL, it's replacement probably will be a retina 13 + some thunderbolt external case with decent storage, unless terabytes of SSD become cheap by then

 

[TechZeke]

For me, I am considering returning mine. I found out yesterday that the 13" processor is sluggish with the most basic picture editing. I use preview a lot to edit pictures and it is very sluggish. This has proven to me that geekbench doesn't mean jack. This 13" retina scores almost as high as my 2011 iMac quad core, yet my iMac is smooth as day at editing photos.

I always take synthetic benchmarks with a grain of salt. I lost all hope in synthetic benchmarks with they started saying mobile dual cores were as powerful or scored higher than slightly older high-end desktop quads.

They also over-inflate scores between different architectures, or double the scores of i7s because of hyper threading when real-world performance shows only 20-25% increase in the most ideal conditions.

 

[KUguardgrl13]

Personally, I like the retina line. The display is sharp and has less glare problems than my old mid-2009 MBP. I also don't mind the 1440x900 workspace because I've been used to the 1280x800 of my old MBP and 800x600 with older PCs for years before that. The only fuzziness I notice is with small images like logos on bookmarks in Chrome and emoticons on MR.

The pcie chip is fast in comparison to the HDDs I've been using for years. I only occasionally wish I had had the funds to go for the 512gb instead of the 256. If only Western Digital wasn't (from what I can tell) changing out their portable product lines.

If the glued in battery doesn't last as long as I want it to, I will hopefully have a decent paying job where I can afford to have Apple change it out. If not, then I guess I'll manage. I hope they'll adapt battery replacement prices so they don't skyrocket just because it's a different process!

Just my $.02. Since I'm not a "professional", you can take it for what it's worth.

 

[Commy1]

I can't say I like everything about the Retina line up but from my personal experience I find it very refreshing.
Having the retina on the iPhone or iPad is great but seeing the Retina resolution using full OSX applications is a very welcome experience.
PCIe flash storage is fabulous, never experienced anything like it before even in SSD's I've had before.
The battery life is fabulous, unreal. I've been using my rMBP 13" for 3 hours now from 100% to 94% (in a dark room at very minimal brightness).
Power of the base model i5 2.4GHz doing virtually anything I've thrown at it is great. Browsing, word processing, sorting 4000+ large JPEG+RAW photos in Lightroom 5, Photoshop, Aperture all while streaming Netflix on a second screen.

Overall I am impressed with the machine, extremely thin and light yet power packed and sturdy. I think the Retina line up is beastly and where computing should be today. Albeit at a high price...

 

[Meister]

For years people whined about a redesigned MacBook pro. Well everyone got their wish in 2012. I am wondering now since the retina macbook pro has been pretty much standard, if we all like it or not?

I do not care for the retina line myself because:

-Retina resolution = 1440x900 workspace
-Both the 13" and 15" 2013 models seem to have lower brightness compared to the 2012 MBP
-Not user accessible
many, many defects with screens (the user shouldn't have to worry about which make they may or may not get)
-Anti-glare anyone? I know I preferred the 2012 macbook with an anti-glare screen. Seemed very bright and overall a very nice screen, despite being a non-ips panel. The retinas do have decreased glare, but nowhere to the level where the anti-glare screens had

As much as someone of us don't want to admit it, we are stuck with the retina line if we ever need a new Apple powerhouse laptop. They are not bad by any means. I just do not like them and am wondering if anyone else feels the same. I wish the unibody macbook pro was still available with a haswell/broadwell processor.

- Switchresx= choose the resolution you like
- brightness is more than enouh imo
- my screen is fine. As far as i know almost all 13" are fine
- anit-glare is not for me. Dont know what that would be good for
- user access is a tradeoff for the size and weight. Thats the future...