Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New Photos of 13-Inch Retina MacBook Pro Show Battery Layout, Ports, and More [Updated]

aristotle said:
Right and you cannot set the resolution to scaled 1920X1200 then. Oh, wait, you can.

You could also download the setres command line tool to set it to the native resolution any time you wanted.

I've successfully run my rMBP in 2880X1800 mode.
Click to expand...

Guess what Sherlock, you're right :eek: but for the 'best for retina' scenario all that is worthless - kind of 1/3 of what makes these displays really interesting is stuck with less screen real estate than my 2 years old MBA - there is NO sound reason to keep the 13" display stuck there - your smart reply doesn't change that.
And why did you mention your 15" again?
 
KPOM said:
$1699 is right when you compare it with the MacBook Air. Remember, the base processor in the 13" Pro is faster than the i7 option in the Air. Plus, the Retina Display is a lot nicer, although it has less usable room (being 2x 1280x800 vs 1440x900 on the 13" Air). The 13" Air with i7/256GB/4GB RAM is $1599.
Click to expand...


Yeah. Except, with all those batteries how much is this lead weight gonna weigh?

The whole inside is batteries. :confused:

.
 
shanmugam said:
I do not understand the logic of including HDMI.

Apple did not provide HDMI when Apple TV was not that popular.

Now AppleTV, QuickSynch Technology easily mirrors your mac to the TV.

HDMI will be useful sometimes, but not a lot.
Click to expand...

I hate to dip into the "what would Steve have done?" territory, but it seems obvious to me that HDMI never existed on a Mac until after Steve Jobs was out of the picture. Perhaps it was something that the engineering team always wanted to include, but was held back by Jobs?
 
Patriot24 said:
I hate to dip into the "what would Steve have done?" territory, but it seems obvious to me that HDMI never existed on a Mac until after Steve Jobs was out of the picture. Perhaps it was something that the engineering team always wanted to include, but was held back by Jobs?
Click to expand...

+1000, I thought exactly also.

But it is too late, but it is good for guys who does not own an Apple TV.

Of course one can connect external monitor using the HDMI, but Display port does the same with adapter. It is good anyway.
 
Last edited:
Patriot24 said:
I hate to dip into the "what would Steve have done?" territory, but it seems obvious to me that HDMI never existed on a Mac until after Steve Jobs was out of the picture. Perhaps it was something that the engineering team always wanted to include, but was held back by Jobs?
Click to expand...

It may be because they have more room to work with on the other side of the machine, since there is no longer an optical drive. I'm really looking forward to this machine; how would the $1699 price point convert to GBP? I was hoping it to be £1500 max for the base model.
 
Jamie0003 said:
It may be because they have more room to work with on the other side of the machine, since there is no longer an optical drive.
Click to expand...

That is a great point.

I suppose someone will probably chime in and ask why HDMI wasn't on iMacs and Mac Pros, however.

Then someone will say that they aren't mobile devices and don't need them.

Then we'll see next week if the new iMacs have HDMI and settle it.

:)
 
dampfnudel said:
Welcome to the future or as I like to call it, 2013.
Click to expand...

Well I havent ever used ny optical drive on my 2007 macbook. Im still suprised ppl compain that there wont be one. Usb is a much better option. My tv tskes it directly. Home stereo and car takes it. Can store and erase files. What on earth do u do with a cd these days????????
 
nick_elt said:
Well I havent ever used ny optical drive on my 2007 macbook. Im still suprised ppl compain that there wont be one. Usb is a much better option. My tv tskes it directly. Home stereo and car takes it. Can store and erase files. What on earth do u do with a cd these days????????
Click to expand...

Cup holder :p Especially those old AOL CD's I have from years ago...
 
Jamie0003 said:
It may be because they have more room to work with on the other side of the machine, since there is no longer an optical drive. I'm really looking forward to this machine; how would the $1699 price point convert to GBP? I was hoping it to be £1500 max for the base model.
Click to expand...

I've been working this out, and comparing it to the rumoured $1699 price tag, and noting that the high end 13" MBP and MBA start at £1249, i'm guessing £1399.
 
shanmugam said:
I do not understand the logic of including HDMI.

Apple did not provide HDMI when Apple TV was not that popular.

Now AppleTV, QuickSynch Technology easily mirrors your mac to the TV.

HDMI will be useful sometimes, but not a lot.
Click to expand...

The inclusion of HDMI is almost certainly because they want to still allow two extra displays even when thunderbolt ports are being used for other things like wired networking or storage. Apple can't include more than 2 thunderbolt ports without adding more large and expensive thunderbolt controllers and eating up extra PCI-E lanes. An extra non-thunderbolt mini-displayport connector would confuse people because it would look identical to the Thunderbolt ports but work very differently. HDMI (for adaptor less connection to modern TVs and projectors) seems like a pretty good option to me if more than two Thunderbolt ports aren't in the cards.

iMac's likely don't have HDMI because they have an internal display and built in firewire/ethernet so both thunderbolt ports are available for displays and the need for non-daisy chain-able adaptors is less. I wouldn't be surprised to see two thunderbolt ports on the new 21 inch iMac. I also hope they put two thunderbolt ports on the new Mini instead of TB + HDMI since there are cheap TB->HDMI adaptors but no HDMI->TB
 
Here's hoping it still has a FireWire port... I've heard horror stores of the Thunderbolt to FW800 adapter not working well at all.
 
ohbrilliance said:
I'd expect the 13" rMBP to offer resolutions options of 1280x800, 1440x900 and 1680x1050, similar to how the 15" rMBP offers resolution settings.
Click to expand...

And 1680x1050 on a rMBP (which is non-native) still looks 10x better than a regular MBP with the high-res display at native res.
 
native resolution

Ok so I am not a computer guy maybe someone can answer this... If a writing program gets fuzzy on a retina 15" like Final draft... if the 13" is 2560x1600 and my Nec 30" monitor is same resolution and not fuzzy... will it work the same on the 13"?

also if I want to process 16mp photos from my Nikon D4 in photoshop and some lite video work in Final cut X will it be fine or get the 15"? thanks. ;)
 
The Retina MBA will only have 1280x800 usable resolution? The non-Retina is 1440x900...

...so going to get a refurb from Apple.com after the keynote. Since my 2008 MBP, I can't go back from 1440x900.
 
george-brooks said:
The days of Apple Laptops with optical drives are over.

----------



Wouldn't the 13" screen have been easier to develop and manufacture than the 15" though?
Click to expand...

The 13" size is the most popular, and will sell in much higher quantities than the 15" given the price point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back