How do I like my new MBP 2014 15"?

lukester

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Dec 2, 2009
422
4
RI
Yes the screen is very nice and I can deal with the glare compared with my 17" MBP. However you could not beat the screen size and the ability to have a number of windows and programs running and easily clicking to them. So I will miss that, but the 15" is more portable for sure.

I do like the extra memory and speed over the 17". I have not yet really run it through its paces like processing raw files and editing a number of pictures opened in PS and the speed in which the files are processed. In fact I am going to give that a try after I post this. I hoping that some of the actions I use will run much faster.. I just tried a couple of things and its a little faster than my 17".. It had a 512 gig SSD too.

So far I like it, but I am not overwhelmed like I thought I would be.
 

Samuelsan2001

macrumors 604
Oct 24, 2013
7,682
2,103
Yes the screen is very nice and I can deal with the glare compared with my 17" MBP. However you could not beat the screen size and the ability to have a number of windows and programs running and easily clicking to them. So I will miss that, but the 15" is more portable for sure.

I do like the extra memory and speed over the 17". I have not yet really run it through its paces like processing raw files and editing a number of pictures opened in PS and the speed in which the files are processed. In fact I am going to give that a try after I post this. I hoping that some of the actions I use will run much faster.. I just tried a couple of things and its a little faster than my 17".. It had a 512 gig SSD too.

So far I like it, but I am not overwhelmed like I thought I would be.

Change the resolution to more space in the display preferences you should be able to get just as much on the screen then.
 

lukester

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Dec 2, 2009
422
4
RI
I just went down to the smallest setting and it seems the text and windows are now the same as my 17" is.
Its strange that they put the default screen setting so large. It defeats the purpose of the hi definition screen.
I wonder why there are just boxes and not pixel numbers for the selections of screens?
I am going to give the smallest setting a try for awhile and see if it works. I can always increase the font size in Safari too.
 

Samuelsan2001

macrumors 604
Oct 24, 2013
7,682
2,103
I just went down to the smallest setting and it seems the text and windows are now the same as my 17" is.
Its strange that they put the default screen setting so large. It defeats the purpose of the hi definition screen.
I wonder why there are just boxes and not pixel numbers for the selections of screens?
I am going to give the smallest setting a try for awhile and see if it works. I can always increase the font size in Safari too.
I prefer the default seetings whenever possible but I will switch if I need to, I'm on a 13 inch though. The different boxes are classic apple keep it simple and easy with just the basic options wherever possible. You can download switchres X and use whatever resolution you'd like.

http://www.madrau.com/
 

lukester

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Dec 2, 2009
422
4
RI
I prefer the default seetings whenever possible but I will switch if I need to, I'm on a 13 inch though. The different boxes are classic apple keep it simple and easy with just the basic options wherever possible. You can download switchres X and use whatever resolution you'd like.

http://www.madrau.com/
I use CS6 and bridge for photography so I noticed a big difference in screen real-estate for editing pictures. I guess I will use my 30" Cinema display more now. I am hoping this new computer will enable me to get through editing images much faster. I will let you know. I have an event I am covering Saturday night and will see how much better it goes
 

lukester

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Dec 2, 2009
422
4
RI
I just ran a Black Magic disc speed test on both machines. I got about 250 on the 17" and 700 write speed on the 2014.
That's a big jump in speed.. I guess that is testing the write and read speeds to the HD?
 

TechZeke

macrumors 68020
Jul 29, 2012
2,363
1,974
San Antonio, TX
I just went down to the smallest setting and it seems the text and windows are now the same as my 17" is.
Its strange that they put the default screen setting so large. It defeats the purpose of the hi definition screen.
I wonder why there are just boxes and not pixel numbers for the selections of screens?
I am going to give the smallest setting a try for awhile and see if it works. I can always increase the font size in Safari too.
The highest setting is scaled to look like 1920x1200, the same res as the 17"(which is one of the reasons I think Apple killed the 17") On the resolution menu/preferences, under the mock up picture of the rMBP, it should say "Looks like 1920x1200".

On the 15", I've found 1680x1050 to be the sweet spot. Significantly more space over the default 1440x900 will also still being easily readable.

Also, the reason that default setting is so "large" is because 1440x900 is exactly half of 2880x1800. It looks the most crisp on this setting, but you do lose a bit of real estate.
 

lukester

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Dec 2, 2009
422
4
RI
The highest setting is scaled to look like 1920x1200, the same res as the 17"(which is one of the reasons I think Apple killed the 17") On the resolution menu/preferences, under the mock up picture of the rMBP, it should say "Looks like 1920x1200".

On the 15", I've found 1680x1050 to be the sweet spot. Significantly more space over the default 1440x900 will also still being easily readable.

Also, the reason that default setting is so "large" is because 1440x900 is exactly half of 2880x1800. It looks the most crisp on this setting, but you do lose a bit of real estate.
ON my 17 in usually increased the font size in Safari by one notch.. I have a 30" cinema that I will use more now for editing images...I hope the computer will speed things up.