Gizmodo: This Is the MacBook Pro Retina Model You Should Buy

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by bmstrong, Jun 13, 2012.

  1. mason.kramer macrumors 6502

    mason.kramer

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Location:
    Watertown, MA
    #2
    I have 9 gigs of ram in my computer and I have never swapped, once, in four and a half years. I've run VMWare windows 7 and Parallels Fusion, and I. Have. Never. Swapped.

    I really don't think you need the RAM upgrade. But I understand that this is not a popular opinion.
     
  2. NewbieCanada macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    #3
    Well their recommendation was right for me. In day-to-day life the 128 GB drive on my MacBook Air was just fine. I use it for apps and my (clearly not huge) Itunes library. So I know I'll be fine with 256 GB. When I travel for a while and want a largish video library with me, I have a Seagate GoFlex Slim drive - it's 750 GB and 7200 RPM and THIN. At home I have more terabytes of storage than I can count.

    The bottom-of-the line CPU is faster than my desktop i7 by a wide margin. I expect it will handle all I can throw at it.
     
  3. Hidendra macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    #4
    cool, exactly what I ordered. The upgrade to a 2.6 cpu with 512 GB SSD isn't worth it (IMO) when where SSD storage is concerned, 256 GB is way more than enough for myself (programming, light gaming). Media is all stored on externals anyway (my itunes library is barely 10 GB)
     
  4. mleary macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    #5
    7200 rpm hdd is faster than the mbp's top of the line ssd when used as a media archive? Just not true, I'd like to see him explain that.

    Also, you don't need anything bigger than 256gb because you can use cloud services like dropbox? This guy apparently has never used dropbox, it syncs your files to the local drive so no space savings there.

    This author is truly clueless...
     
  5. Martialis macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    #6
  6. PhaserFuzz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    #7
    16GB of ram is way overkill. Most people probably wouldn't even notice the difference.
     
  7. mohsy90 macrumors 65816

    mohsy90

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Location:
    New York
    #8
    That's true. But considering it's a $2200 purchase and most buyers will likely want to keep this computer for at least 2+ years. You might as well upgrade to the 16gb to insure you have sufficient speed into future as other laptops and software are upgrade. Software is getting more and more complex eating up more of your ram. So might as well max out because you'll be stuck with the 8gb.
     
  8. note235 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    #9
    he probably means sustained
    for me 256 is good enough especially with external
    the big thing is the memory
    after effects and premiere will GOBBLE it all up
     
  9. Martialis macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    #10
    And, of course, there are some of us who for whom maximizing the memory for our work is actually reasonable.
     
  10. beamer8912 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    #11
    Thats the thing though, you'vehave 9 (strange number btw) gigs of ram since 2007(8?). No one would have ever thought to put 9 gigs of ram in back then. Now you have to consider 4.5 years in the future. 16 is probably the way to go.
     
  11. keviikev macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    #12
    I got 2.3 8GB RAM retina enough to run CS5 and LR4. I don't do video editing and I am not a gamer
     
  12. mohsy90 macrumors 65816

    mohsy90

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Location:
    New York
    #13
    4.5 years ago 9GB of ram was a ALOT. You're forgetting that most of us buying this will be keeping it for up to 4-5 years until the next refresh. By then 16GB will be standard so you might as well plan for the future because you CANT upgrade!!
     
  13. ender land macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    #14
    Yeah, I don't know if I can take this article too serious after this.
     
  14. nars1l macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    #15
    While the article isn't the best-written I've ever seen, it basically gets all the main points right.

    I ordered the 2.3/256/16 model myself - processor is plenty, SSD is accompanied by a 1TB external, and upping to 16GB futureproofs it.

    And $200 for an extra 8GB, while painful when you look at how cheap buying 16GB and putting it into your old MBP is, is pretty good as far as Apple prices are concerned. Yeah, I don't like letting Apple stick it to me like this, but going along with Apple's being a control freak is part of the buy-in price of Apple computers, both software and hardware.
     
  15. TJC PE macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    #16
    Middle ground 2.6 with 512ssd and 16 gb RAM

    Just ordered what for me is great middle ground:

    - went with the slightly *faster processor 2.6 CPU
    yes needed to pay $600 more but CPU goes from 2.3 to 2.6*
    AND THE SSD goes from 256 gb SSD to 512 gb.

    The bump in SSD alone is worth about $600 or $700 IF it could be bought aftermarket from OWC. No telling when the aftermarket SSD upgrade might be available, but likely 2 months or more. *Besides, with the retina display and all this new technology tightly packaged in a whole new configuration, I don't want any deniability on any warranty work or AppleCare claims due to third party SSD. Nothing wrong with OWC as a company, just don't want to risk it and why wait a few months to buy the SSD I want from aftermarket when I can get it right now from Apple at a very reasonable price?

    - maxed out with the16 gb RAM ($200 more but can't upgrade later)

    - Couldn't justify spending $250 for the small bump in CPU from 2.6 to 2.7
    - Couldn't justify spending $500 more for the bump in SSD from 512 to 768gb

    So this splits the middle quite nicely:

    -Base Entry Model: 2.3 CPU, 8gb RAM, 256 gb SSD = $2,199
    * * * (great lightweight 15 inch MacBook Pro with Retina display)

    -My Custom Model: 2.6 CPU, 16gb RAM, 512 gb SSD = $2,999*
    * * *($800 more for a lot of good stuff)

    -MAX Model: *2.7 CPU, 16 gb RAM, 768 gb SSD = $3,749
    * * *($750 more for some relatively small incremental gains in practical function)

    Your mileage may vary, but I really think this hits the sweet spot, and may turn out to be one of the most common BTO configurations!
     
  16. mtl171 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Location:
    California
    #17
    Makes sense to me. an extra $600 for a cpu bump and extra 256GB isnt really worth while for me. As for the extra 8GB of ram, while pricey its not something I can upgrade down the line so might as well. In the end, will probably just going to end up spending the money saved on Applecare.
     
  17. Martialis macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    #18
    Nice, this is the exact configuration I've been contemplating myself. I'd love to expand the SSD, but the price of doing so is rather huge, I think I'd just get a nice, big, high speed external HD to dump files on.
     
  18. m85476585 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    #19
    Here's how I see it:
    In 2008, 2gb was standard, 4gb was comfortable, and 6-8 was a lot (and cost several hundred dollars). I got by with 4 for around a year, but I was doing some VM work while running Matlab and Firefox, all of which hog RAM. I was waiting for swap too much, so I upgraded to 6GB when a 4GB module for my computer dropped to around $150, and I've been very happy with it until the past year. Now I don't use VMWare as much, but Snow Leopard and Firefox hog much more RAM than they used to (and leak like sieves), and if I'm running too many things at once sometimes I hit swap. 8GB would be comfortable right now for what I do.

    4 years down the road, I can anticipate 8gb no longer being comfortable. I can't imagine what could possibly use so much RAM (and I don't even understand what uses so much RAM right now... Why does Firefox need 500MB to 1GB(!)?), but given the trend that's been continuing since I first owned a computer I can say it's very likely that in four years we will be using a lot more memory than we do now. Maybe youtube will start allowing 4K uploads so Flash can max out 16 CPU cores, or maybe Apple will introduce a new Cochlea® iTunes music format that takes more RAM to decode, or maybe once more third party apps are updated to be retina compatible they will start using four times as much RAM as they do now.
     
  19. zahque macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    #20
    "640k ought to be enough for anybody." -- attributed to Bill Gates, 1981
    (though he denies he ever said it.) but the point has been made.
     
  20. Demosthenes X macrumors 68000

    Demosthenes X

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    #21
    Maybe...
     
  21. Rudy69 macrumors 6502a

    Rudy69

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    #22
    I would like to have 16GB but to be honest it's not worth having to order online and wait a month to get it.... I'm just going for the base model
     
  22. Geekbabe macrumors 6502a

    Geekbabe

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    #23
    I agree with them, the 16GB, 256GB SSD is what I'm considering.
     
  23. lulla01 macrumors 68020

    lulla01

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    U.S
    #24
    I'm debating the 16gb but everyone is talking about how it'll be the norm a few years from now but who am I kidding I buy a new computer every 1-2 years I've owned every MacBook air to date and a few others in between. My iMac has 8 and it's great even though leggy at times it doesn't have an ssd or an ivy bridge so I guess I'll just pick up whatever model I find.
     
  24. blueicedj macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    #25
    256gb is just too small. I'd tech the processor bump and extra SSD space over having 16gb of ram
     

Share This Page