Because you want to be the case in your mind? I have only ever heard of the 13" MBA being their best-selling laptop (and Mac).Remind me why the non Retina Macbook is one of their best selling laptops, despite being over priced and outdated?
Because you want to be the case in your mind? I have only ever heard of the 13" MBA being their best-selling laptop (and Mac).Remind me why the non Retina Macbook is one of their best selling laptops, despite being over priced and outdated?
Where the heck did you get the for that remote from? Mine went with my 2006 MBP when I sold that in 2009.I do miss controlling Keynote with it.
Where the heck did you get the for that remote from? Mine went with my 2006 MBP when I sold that in 2009.
The only valid point if you need large amounts of storage. But you are limited to SATA3 speeds, peaking at about 550 MB/s unless you striped two SSDs. The current rMBP offers about 4x that speed.
Really? If that is a major concern for you, I don't know what to say.
They haven't shipped an IR remote with Macs for a long time (my 2009 MBP didn't come with one nor any of my later Macs). Nobody except with 7+year old Macs actually still has such a remote. Frontrow, which was what the IR sensor and the remote were added for, was removed from OS X with Lion.
Because you want to be the case in your mind? I have only ever heard of the 13" MBA being their best-selling laptop (and Mac).
There is only one real reason to get that model: Get more storage cheap. For $100 more than the non-retina MBP, you can get a 13" MBA which has only half the storage, but storage that is 10x faster.I know numerous people in sales who also say that the Non retina pro sells well. If it didn't sell well Apple wouldn't sell it at all.
There is only one real reason to get that model: Get more storage cheap. For $100 more than the non-retina MBP, you can get a 13" MBA which has only half the storage, but storage that is 10x faster.
Processor speed might be a wash: faster-clocked Sandy Bridge vs slower-clocked Broadwell. Graphics is significantly faster on the MBA, battery life 12 vs 7 hours (MBA vs non-retina MBP), the non-retina is 50% heavier, has only TB1 vs TB2 on the MBA, external monitor support tops out at 2560 by 1600 vs 4K on the MBA.
Really, getting more storage for less money is the only reason the general population would buy it. You would probably get much better value with a used 2012 or 2013 rMBP.
I had the speed of the 15" model in mind, the 13" is slower.And Sata 3 speeds are almost more then enough for a lot of situations. Not to mention the ability to put two drives in. Not sure where the 4 times speed is from. The 2015 13 inch Retina Macbook I replaced with this cMBP gets about double that speed, not quadruple.
That is again just a question of price.You also miss out being able to expand the ram which is also important.
And how much is a used 2012 13" retina MB with a 1 TB SSD? Complaining that a 2015 model is more expensive than a model from 2012 is a bit pointless.Being able to expand the cMBP gives you a lot of flexibility and at a much lower cost than Apple's prices. I looked into getting a rMBP with 1 TB SSD and 16GB of ram, but it would have cost $1300 ish more than what I paid, and that is lot of money.
Why would the battery more expensive to replace? Because it is a larger capacity one? The non-retina one doesn't have a user-accessible battery either.Not to mention I knew how expensive it would be when the battery dies on the rMBP to replace, or if pretty much anything else went wrong.
The rMBP is so much better in so many aspects (screen, CPU, GPU, SSD, multiple external monitors, battery life, weight/thickness), and you gripe over a battery indicator light that you use maybe three times per year? You sound like somebody who feels entitled to never have something taken away from him. Things change, there is no guarantee in life that all changes will always be better in every aspect. If you already get riled up over the loss of a battery charge indicator, you must be upset over almost anything that is new and different.One of the most useful Macbook Pro design features, not having to turn the laptop on to find out what battery charge you have.
Of course it works, my question is why you still have a remote since Apple hasn't shipped one for years.My 2012 Macbook Pro works with my Apple remote,
A 2012 model still being successful in 2013 is something quite different than a 2012 model still being successful in 2015. Get me some more recent data.In late 2013 it was estimated to be amongst their best selling laptop
Now, tell me why I am not surprised about that aspect.especially popular with PC switchers thus why it was still on sale
And they are probably laughing all the way to the bank.Apple wouldn't be selling them otherwise.
And there are no alternative remotes available?I do miss controlling Keynote with it.
I had the speed of the 15" model in mind, the 13" is slower.
That is again just a question of price.
And how much is a used 2012 13" retina MB with a 1 TB SSD? Complaining that a 2015 model is more expensive than a model from 2012 is a bit pointless.
Why would the battery more expensive to replace? Because it is a larger capacity one? The non-retina one doesn't have a user-accessible battery either.
The rMBP is so much better in so many aspects (screen, CPU, GPU, SSD, multiple external monitors, battery life, weight/thickness), and you gripe over a battery indicator light that you use maybe three times per year? You sound like somebody who feels entitled to never have something taken away from him. Things change, there is no guarantee in life that all changes will always be better in every aspect. If you already get riled up over the loss of a battery charge indicator, you must be upset over almost anything that is new and different.
Of course it works, my question is why you still have a remote since Apple hasn't shipped one for years.
A 2012 model still being successful in 2013 is something quite different than a 2012 model still being successful in 2015. Get me some more recent data.
Now, tell me why I am not surprised about that aspect.
Ethernet is not such a great example since that second TB port can easily be 'converted' into an Ethernet port via a dongle. I haven't had optical drives in my computers since 2009 but I did watch many DVDs since then, ripping to disk via an external DVD drive doesn't feel more than chore than opening the DVD case itself.People buy it for other reasons as well. Some people need optical drives, some people need ethernet, some people need more bang for buck. You'd be surprised how many people still watch DVDs on their Laptops and don't want an external drive to do so.
If you expect Apple to ever do such a thing, you are in for a long wait. The 13" MBA and especially the 13" MBP are clearly better machines. If that 'better' comes at a higher cost or a lower internal storage, that is the price Apple considers worth paying for it.If Apple would update it, half the problems would go away (Old graphics etc).
Well, Apple has prospered by predominantly catering to the lovers of the latest and greatest and not by catering to the budget crowd. Complaining about the price of Apple products is like complaining about the price of any premium product.As I've continually said, the cMBP is not for everyone, the same as the rMB, the rMBP and the MBA are not for everyone, as computing needs vary quite considerably.
I can also guarantee you that macrumours members are probably not likely to be lovers of the cMBP as it is a machine that goes against what Apple has done of late, and people on here are lovers of the latest and greatest, and that is not always reflected in the real world.
Ethernet is not such a great example since that second TB port can easily be 'converted' into an Ethernet port via a dongle. I haven't had optical drives in my computers since 2009 but I did watch many DVDs since then, ripping to disk via an external DVD drive doesn't feel more than chore than opening the DVD case itself.
If you expect Apple to ever do such a thing, you are in for a long wait. The 13" MBA and especially the 13" MBP are clearly better machines. If that 'better' comes at a higher cost or a lower internal storage, that is the price Apple considers worth paying for it.
Well, Apple has prospered by predominantly catering to the lovers of the latest and greatest and not by catering to the budget crowd. Complaining about the price of Apple products is like complaining about the price of any premium product.
You know, the battery life indicator is probably the biggest thing that irks me about the retina models. It's like, WHY???? It is SO bloody handy to see about how much battery is left without having to open it and they seemingly removed it for absolutely no reason. Also plus one for having an updated (even still non-retina) classic MacBook Pro. Just imagine the battery life they could get out of that thing with current hardware!!!!! But it is comparatively heavy and it will never happen. Oh and yeah I have an old remote from my father-in-law's old 24" iMac that I use all the time with my 2011 27" iMac (a.k.a the iMac with possibly the most useful features ever, extra SATA port for custom Fusion drive (done), user-accessible RAM (20GB), Thunderbolt port that I used to add USB3 and eSATA (awesome), FireWire (I use it), optical drive (ditto), AND an SD card slot that is actually accessible!!!!) Rant over.Yes it is needed. It is needed by many, obviously not by you though. Glad to see you've bought completely into what Apple tells you.
Remind me why the non Retina Macbook is one of their best selling laptops, despite being over priced and outdated?
Thus going back to my point. A lineup that catered to a wide range of people would be great.
Just give us a Retina Macbook Air already!!![]()
The rMB - IS - the retina MBA. As soon it is affordable enough it will kill the MBA.
Exactly, the MacBook Air is an antiquated design with huge bezels and an low res screen, also with a larger footprint then the MacBook Pro 13"
It's going to be MacBook and MacBook Pro as the only options in a couple years
17% increase over the crappy 12inch macbook isn't much.
All you need is MacBook and MacBook Pro. Those two machines can cover everyone's notebook needs.
its going to be awhile mate. mid 2016 or later.Really getting impatient with waiting for the rMBP . . .
Why does Apple continue to NOT used quad core processors. Good grief.
The rMB will be super awesome in a couple of years.
For now, even with one of these processors, it is still too underpowered for me.
We're going to get the full 900 MHz awesomeness! I can't wait!
When did MBA ever has dGPUs?
As for the MBP not running emulators or 10 year old games, what utter nonsense. Just BS. I have an hd4000 GPU and could run newish games at the time like CSGO, Rage, COD, etc.
Skylake MBPs are at least 5-6 months away
my prediction:
Skylake MBP - early 2016
Kabylake MBP - late 2016
Cannonlake MBP - mid~late 2017
No. The Macbook Pro Retina is missing a lot of the attractive features of the Non retina Pro. Ports, expandability, battery life indicator, IR sensor etc. The difference will be even more so if apple goes down the route of thinning down the Retina Macbook Pro.
yes but it is often times the most important featureAnd again.. The benefit to users is? NOTHING!
More costs, more freaking disaster. Except in the past it had benefits. Better performance etc. Now it really doesn't. Anyone who thinks that Apple could do better than Intel who are completely devoted to desktop class architecture is dreaming.
In the real world, light and thin is not the only thing people look at when buying a laptop.
As a consumer I could not giving a flying hoot if it saves Apple some money. When the majority of the worlds computers (not mobile phones) are running Arm processors, it will be different, but that is a long way off.
Yes it is needed. It is needed by many, obviously not by you though. Glad to see you've bought completely into what Apple tells you.
Remind me why the non Retina Macbook is one of their best selling laptops, despite being over priced and outdated?
Thus going back to my point. A lineup that catered to a wide range of people would be great.
non retina macbook is not one of Apple's best selling laptops.... lol?
The RAM upgrade from 8 to 16 GB costs $200 with the 13" rMBP. It costs nothing with the 15" model because that comes already with 16 GB.Not a lot of people have the funds to pay $700 for a ram upgrade that costs $200 to do yourself, plus you get the flexibility of doing it at your own leisure.
If you very really looking for value, you could get a 2012 cMBP for a fraction of what you pay new for it. And if you have to replace the battery, the fan or the HDD, you are still coming out ahead massively (and it seems you are replacing the HDD anyway).Because I don't want a 2012 retina Macbook pro which has been used? The 2012 Macbook Pro non retina is still sold brand new.
You also loose most of the price premium, which even things out.You also loose most of the advantages such as battery life going for the 2012 model.
You are also getting a much longer battery life with the rMBP, thus if you are happy with a shorter battery life, you can keep using it until it gets to maybe 60% of its design capacity, ie, significantly longer.Its $179 for the classic Macbook pro, and $279 for the retina pro for battery replacement. Not only that but I am free to easily replace the battery myself at any time in the Non retina pro once my warranty ends. The rMBP requires a complete top case replacement as its glued in.
No, I'm the glass-half-full guy whereas you sound like a glass-half-empty guy.You sound like the sort of user who will just accept whatever apple does
The problem is that with your priorities, requirements and preferences you will never be happy with Apple. So, you complaining about Apple is like banging your head against the wall. It's a pointless exercise.Honestly just accept that people have different priorities, requirements and preferences to your own with laptop
The RAM upgrade from 8 to 16 GB costs $200 with the 13" rMBP. It costs nothing with the 15" model because that comes already with 16 GB.
If you very really looking for value, you could get a 2012 cMBP for a fraction of what you pay new for it. And if you have to replace the battery, the fan or the HDD, you are still coming out ahead massively (and it seems you are replacing the HDD anyway).
No, I'm the glass-half-full guy whereas you sound like a glass-half-empty guy.
The problem is that with your priorities, requirements and preferences you will never be happy with Apple. So, you complaining about Apple is like banging your head against the wall. It's a pointless exercise.
Yeah, it was actually useful for that. Luckily, there are cheap USB dongles available too.I do miss controlling Keynote with it.
I do miss having the ethernet port. The TB to ethernet adaptor is still a pain. On the bright side, HDMI has been helpful.Yeah, Ethernet and FW. The rMBP has a second TB and an HDMI port instead. Two ports lost and two ports gained, I call that a draw (with a TB port offering more options than an Ethernet or FW port).
I do miss having the ethernet port. The TB to ethernet adaptor is still a pain. On the bright side, HDMI has been helpful.
There are so many people like you that assume that Intel is really the problem here. They aren't. The real problem is that we are getting very close to the wall on how small we can build silicone chips. Most of the added performance seen in each generation of chip has been because we can keep shrinking them and adding more transistors to make things run faster and add more functionality. The wall is fast approaching and each step we make closer to it is getting harder and harder costing more time to get there. Apple is not immune to this with their chips just because they are ARM instead of x86 architecture. The fast moving pace of silicone tech is beginning to slow down due to these physical limits. You and everyone else is just going to have to get used to that.
You clearly missed the point. I was responding to: "17% increase over the crappy 12inch macbook isn't much."
I'm used to that. But to address the comment blaming Apple is stupid. It's not their fault. There are different architectures to consider, some have better potential, especially if low power is important as it is with Apple for a better user experience.
Before you say too much about "silicone" tech and approaching performance walls, you should probably understand it is silicon, not silicone. Silicone is a rubber-like synthetic compound, commonly used as a caulk. Silicon, is an element, Si, which when properly doped with other elements becomes a semi-conductor. Once you understand that we can have a better discussion, in much greater detail about the nature of these walls and what they are due to.
I think we can all agree that more horsepower should be the number one priority. Having purchased a RMB myself, I kinda feel cheated now that months after Intel released new chips. Apple could have waited a bit longer.
You clearly missed the point. I was responding to: "17% increase over the crappy 12inch macbook isn't much."
I'm used to that. But to address the comment blaming Apple is stupid. It's not their fault. There are different architectures to consider, some have better potential, especially if low power is important as it is with Apple for a better user experience.
Before you say too much about "silicone" tech and approaching performance walls, you should probably understand it is silicon, not silicone. Silicone is a rubber-like synthetic compound, commonly used as a caulk. Silicon, is an element, Si, which when properly doped with other elements becomes a semi-conductor. Once you understand that we can have a better discussion, in much greater detail about the nature of these walls and what they are due to.
That's a fairly bold claim.
Core count really doesn't say much. Also, oddly enough, this rMBP has four cores, not two.
As for 16 or 32 cores, programmers are already struggling to make their code sufficiently parallelized to max out four cores, let alone more than that. It doesn't really scale like that right now, and it won't for a while.
Intel isn't equipping their consumer CPUs with few cores because they can't deliver more; it's because 1) it lets them keep it to the high server end, and 2) there's really not a whole lot of use for more cores. Two cores was a great leap because you always have plenty of background processes anyway. Three or four cores can still be a bit of an advantage. Beyond that? Not so much. This is different on servers, where applications are more likely to be split into worker processes.