Rule of thumb when you are attempting to buy a machine to last for many many years, buy as strong a machine as you can afford.
From what you have said here, you are not what would be considered a "power user" : Lot's of graphics editing, or heavy gaming, or heavy engineering. My recommendation to you is:
a) Buy the new MBP (non retina), don't invest in extra memory or ssd until you feel you need it. At a minimum, that is an extra 300-400 dollars. (assuming 8 GB ram and 256 GB ssd)
b) If you really want the lightweightness of the rMBP, look to the used market for a 2012. There are great deals because of the recent refresh by apple.
well as i actually saiyd i need a very performance machine, that can last me for several years, i do a lot of photo editing and video editing, but i not get money form that, hope so in the future, but not gaming , the problem is not the money the problem is it worth it the difference of the money ? it's a big difference about 1200$... the screen somebody told me that the non retina hig resolution antiglare is bettere the color accuracy and in the gamut than the retina, and the processor isn't relly different performance between the 2 model, and about the gpu dedicate the told me that's not a very big difference it's so ? or no i don't need a lighter or smaller just a great machine that that does not make me feel the lack of a workstation
Doing that alone will save you big $$$ with the cMBP, because you have to pay for all of that upfront with the rMBP. You can quadruple the MAX memory available in the rMBP, by swapping out the optical drive and maxing out both storage spaces.
I'd go with the classic, because it's more easily user maintainable, and can be upgraded as newer tech comes out. Performance wise, once you swap out the original HDD with an SSD, is negligible, unless you are a power user. And in that case, getting the max CPU of the cMBP would put you ahead of the lesser CPUs of the rMBP anyway.
what u mean with your last phrase ?
that the cpu of the non retina is similar performance as the retina model ?
In your position, I would go with non-retina. It does not seem like the extra cost is worth it if you're a student and don't have a high income, plus the non-retina offers you more flexibility if your needs change.
yeah i'm a student and i dont get money from the "job" it's more likely a huge hobby that i hope will became a work
well as i actually saiyd i need a very performance machine, that can last me for several years, i do a lot of photo editing and video editing, but not gaming .
Have you asked yourself if those that recommended the rMBP to you actually need one or whether they just have more money than sense? The vast majority of rMBP users don't need the screen but felt like they did. Same thing happens with the Mac Pro...people that have the money but don't need it just go right out and get it and then come onto forums like this one and ask others what they should use it for.
i like your opinion really, i'm not a fan boy that would like to nuy a mac and go everywhere and say to all hey see my new RETINA macbook pro doesn't look awesome ? i don't nedd it at all
i need a very perforamet machine that last several years, i do a lot of photo editing and video editing, but i not get money form that, hope so in the future, but not gaming , the problem is not the money the problem is it worth it the difference of the money ? it's a big difference about 1200$... the screen sombody told me that the non retina hig resolution antiglare is better the color accuracy and in the gamut than the retina, and the processor isn't really different performance between the 2 model, and about the gpu dedicate the told me that's not a very big difference it's so ? or no i don't need a lighter or smaller just a great machine that that does not make me feel the lack of a workstation
