Hard decision

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by lionmanpt, Jul 30, 2012.

  1. lionmanpt macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    #1
    Well I finally got the funds I needed to by my RMBP.

    I order the base model, however my mind is always thinking that 256 for HDD seems kind of "short"......

    I would like this to be my machine for the next 4 years, and everyday I am thinking: should I order the 2.6/16/512 ?

    It is a hard decision because , at least for me, my money is hard to earn.

    But I am very pragmatic and I do prefer to spend some more know than to think exchanging machine on a near future.

    I would apreciate some advise........

    I use my MBP to maintain websites, gaming, browsing, some programming.

    Thanks !!!!
     
  2. Feed Me macrumors 6502a

    Feed Me

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2012
    Location:
    Location Location
    #2
    Considered the 2.6/8/512 if money's the issue?
     
  3. stooley macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    #3
    If you think you need more storage (sounds like you do since you are even questioning it), you have two options.

    1. Get the 512 instead of the 256
    2. Get a USB3 external drive (cheaper option)

    Just depends what will fit your lifestyle more. External or Internal. I tend to forget externals all the time so opted for more internal storage to help future proof my purchase and just use externals for backup.
     
  4. borisiii macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    #4
    Have a look at your current computer to see how much space you are using. If you have more than about 150GB of stuff, it's reasonable to assume that you will outgrow 256GB within four years.

    If you haven't done a clean install in a long time, keep in mind that you will likely find you free up as much as 50GB of space just by wiping and restoring from time machine.
     
  5. lionmanpt thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    #5
    External...

    You know external drive for me is a no......just because I do not tend to carry them with me.....I do prefer to use them as backup and not as a "online working" disk.

    The 16gb is more based on the issue of not be able to do a upgrade in the future
     
  6. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #6
    Consider a non retina machine you can actually upgrade?
     
  7. lionmanpt thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    #7
    It may sound strange, but since I worked on a RMBP I could never looked "normally" to other screens.
     
  8. Interstella5555 macrumors 603

    Interstella5555

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    #8
    This made sense to me ~5 years ago when you couldn't get a 1TB drive that's the size of a pack of cigarettes and can run off USB. It's the easiest route to get cheap storage for your MBP without having to replace any internals.
     
  9. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #9


    Oh i totally get that.

    But in 2-3 years, SSDs will be a couple of terabytes, and the non-retina is a lot easier to upgrade. Rumor has it they should be able to handle 16gb memory sticks for 32 gb of RAM, too.


    If you do really want the retina display, and plan on keeping for 3-4 years, definitely get 16gb RAM (not 8, as it is soldered to the board) and bank on there being aftermarket SSD upgrades available later, as they are for the MBAs.
     
  10. kamran9558 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    #10
    yeah, but still they hang off the USB and are not exactly mobile :)
     
  11. jcpb macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    #11
    Not so when you can get 2TB in an usb-powered external drive about the size of a fattened deck of cards.
     
  12. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #12
    USB is slow (yes, USB3 too). External is awkward.
     
  13. jcpb macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    #13
    Awkward is when you must explain to your friends why you cannot use the full resolution of the Retina Display without a third-party hack.
     
  14. Mabyboi macrumors 6502

    Mabyboi

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #14
    I had the same dilemma, but what I did is bump up the ram to 16gb (since its soldered) and got a time capsule for home storage and a small USB 3 hard drive for anything extra..

    Personally I don't think I'll really need all that space, but the jump to a 512gb SSD just wasn't financially reasonable..

    Get the upgraded ram, and carry a portable hard drive
     
  15. jcpb macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    #15
    Apple's prices are anything but reasonable. You'd think a company that enjoys a cushy 25%+ profit margin and zero debt can afford to take some price hits here and there :rolleyes:
     
  16. lionmanpt thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    #16
    Didn't get your point......:(

    ----------

    I agree. I find it hard to justify +500€ just for 256Mb ( and 0,1 ghz difference in processing)......
     
  17. pgiguere1 macrumors 68020

    pgiguere1

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #17
    Awkward is when you must explain to your friends why you cannot force UI graphics to be small to a point they're unusable on the Retina Display without a third party hack.

    FTFY.

    The rMBP outputs at 2880x1800 by default.
     
  18. jcpb macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    #18
    If that is the case, ML would have enabled the native 2880 x 1800 option alongside the usual 5 choices for MBPRs.

    It's still not there.
     
  19. pgiguere1 macrumors 68020

    pgiguere1

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #19
    I was in the same situation as OP and decided to order the 256GB model and a Nifty MiniDrive.

    This will allow me to buy a 128GB or 256GB microSDXC card whenever they'll be available (probably in around a year) and use that as storage for cheaper than the 600$ 2.6GHz/512GB upgrade.

    When you get a 64GB microSDXC on sale on Amazon right now it's 55$, so I guess a 256GB next year will be under 200$, maybe even around 150$ with flash memory prices getting down pretty quickly.

    Of course SD cards are slow storage so I wouldn't but applications and OSes on them, but for playing my iTunes library and movies it does no difference, and it's actually faster than my current solution which is using my AirPort Extreme as a NAS with an external USB hard drive.
     
  20. mac jones macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    #20
    I have a hard time shelling out $300 for 256GB. You can get a Crucial M4 512GB for around $280. These are very good SSDs.

    Apple has made it easy to get the RAM upgrade, but they still want to stick you with the SSD upgrade, i'm afraid.

    Save $300. Buy a 500GB USB 3 drive for $50 (THe EGG) has a special today as a matter of fact, I think it's a Seagate 500gb USB 3 drive for Around $50 ;)
     
  21. pgiguere1 macrumors 68020

    pgiguere1

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #21
    The default choice, "Best (Retina)", is already a native 2880x1800. The only difference with the "hack" you mention is that the hack forces OS X to use non-HiDPI bitmaps instead of the @2x it would normally load with a Retina Display. Nothing is being scaled at the "Best (Retina)" setting except older apps that aren't updated for Retina display support, exactly like on the iPhone and iPad.

    It's not complicated, it's exactly the same thing we've been through with the iPhone and then the iPad. How are people still confused about this?

    The new iPad outputs at a native 2048x1536, if a hack was made to force icons and UI elements to have the same resolution as on older iPads instead of loading the @2x assets, it wouldn't be any more of a native 2048x1536, all you would end up with is UI elements that are half the phisical dimensions. Maybe some people would like that better as it would allow them to display more app icons on their homepage grid, but that would still be the same 2048x1536 it was originally.

    It's exactly the same principle with the rMBP.

    You can blame Apple for not providing an option to toggle the use of @2x assets, but don't say the rMBP doesn't output at 2880x1800 by default, that's just false.
     
  22. jcpb macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    #22
    Instead of doing 1:1, it's now doing 2:2, but the requirement is that the apps need to be rebuilt for 2:2 output, otherwise they get the 1:2 treatment and look horrible.

    Native 2880 x 1800 is a 1:1. Best for Retina is 2:2, but 1:2 for most apps that still aren't Retina-optimized. "How is this complicated?" Tell that to the public.
     
  23. pgiguere1 macrumors 68020

    pgiguere1

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #23
    That's pretty exact except that the fact that you call it "Native 2880x1800" suggests that "Best (Retina)" isn't a native 2880x1800 resolution, which it is.

    I get what you mean, I am simply saying that your original statement :
    is incorrect and that the hack you're talking about only enables the loading of regular UI assets instead of the @2x ones, and doesn't try to scale older apps, but does nothing to the resolution itself.

    What I would have personally liked Apple to include is an option to not scale older apps at twice their original resolution, independently of the resolution of UI elements of OS X itself. This can be done on iPhone and iPad, so why not on Mac?
     
  24. Interstella5555 macrumors 603

    Interstella5555

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    #24
    It's the same size as my iPhone...how is that not mobile?
     
  25. kamran9558 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    #25
    but can you keep it connected to your laptop all the time?? what if I am travelling and I need to listen to music?? take out my hard drive plug it in just for listening to a track thats not an ideal mobile solution i suppose
     

Share This Page