It may be retina, but isn't it still a 1440x900 workspace?
I stand corrected, it's not and you can scale it to pretty much whatever. Still no excuse for soldered SSD/RAM and a "PRO" machine.
It's a higher PPI, and menus will have to be larger because of it... time will tell as to who will benefit the most from the new resolution.
Agreed re: SSD and RAM, even though 8GB is excellent for a laptop. But removing such freedoms only makes the "walled garden" belief people have even more concrete. The main laptop cost is, all things considered, fair. Jacking up peripheral costs is just profiteering.
After the ridiculously small Mac Pro update I couldn't care less.
What's the problem? Wouldn't you like it to be able to fry eggs on the go?
Agreed. MBPs have historically ran very hot when used to full potential, or as close to it as possible. Compared to
some other commodity Windows laptops of similar hardware capabilities... I would expect overheating from a low-end Dell laptop (e.g. the Latitude 6320). Not a high-end MacBook. Quality is not merely the veneer and advertised approach (aka "style over substance"). Quality is throughout, or not at all. Or, rather, quality is total, or is a lie.
That's what employers are for.
Ever hear of "BYOD"?
Once that becomes mandatory rather than encouragement... (think how 401ks were once an encouragement as companies started to nix their own pension plans... now 401ks are mandatory, but unfortunately the stock market is nothing more than a casino...)
Who cares? The 13" is for college kids. The only feature that matters is the apple on the lid.
What, the actual operating system has no value???
And more than college kids use 13" displays... seems a silly generalization to claim...
Um, who else sells Macbook Pros??
Apple-authorized retailers.
It's been years since any GPU failed to be of "Pro quality". The only inadequacies are in the minds (and pants) of gamer-kiddies.
Photoshop, After Effects, and other apps make use of the GPU and video RAM. Again, the generalization you're claiming holds no weight.
Um, 4 cores? 16GM RAM? 4x the pixels? Robust enough that I won't snap it in half just by closing the lid? In 12 months the bulk of the rest of the laptop market will still be driven by cheap commodity units, which aren't going to sport 2880x1800 pixels. And even if they do, I'd still have a year of using a rockin' MBP.
"Commodity" = the same hardware Apple puts into its Macs, followed by a pretty veneer. Not the same concepts, but the same components (hardware or software). A Ferrari also uses a 6-cylinder engine but I would expect the components to be more than commodity-grade. You get the implied mindset from Apple with the prices, but implied mindset is not reality.
Also, 2880x1800 @ 300PPI squeezed into a 15" frame where, after a certain distance, people can't tell the difference.
Don't give up hope, there's always a chance that you'll lose your virginity by the time you reach 40.
If you want to value sex so much in your life, that's your problem. Happy scratching, treatment taking, early grave searching, parenting, and everything else that comes out of that happy activity...
Six admins in my group. All >35. Five of the six use 15" MBP's for our jobs. Most of our division, modulo the sales types, use MBP's too.
Do they still have their virginity?
BFD. Apple's been using those in other products for a while now. I had to buy a tiny screwdriver to open my MBP's memory cover, buying another oddball driver to crack into other products is no different. I'd much rather have *anything* over the stupidly-designed Philips head, engineered for failure, with a shape that encourages both driver slipping and stripping. Remember a few years ago when square recess screws were "exotic"?
You won me with "engineered for failure" and the definition following it.
I have three external drives that disagree.
SDXC. Big difference.
The cameras that most people use take SD* cards. Their use in DSLR's is even working its way up the chain as they progressively become competitive with CF, though I favor CF's larger size and physical robustness. It surely costs Apple almost nothing to put it in there.
Maybe. I do wish there were a 512GB option with the base CPU, which would have fit within our purchasing guidelines, where the 512GB + 2.6 GHz costs just barely too much.
CF does better for data integrity, but people want the smaller form factor. Style over substance...
Apple needs its 50%+ profit margin to keep shareholders happy. And some stakeholders, as used Mac prices are typically higher because Apple keeps the base prices higher. Lower the base prices and used equipment instantly loses a lot of 'value' as well.
