Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why don't they put Retina in the old MacBook Pro? (just Mac beginner looking for answer)

Because it requires the new form-factor (the screen is built into the lid in a way that wouldn't fit the old casing) and they wanted to keep both models around ?

Spec the old and new MBPs the same way (256 GB SSD, 8 GB of RAM) and you'll see that the Retina MacBook Pro comes out cheaper with twice the video RAM.

Yes, amazing uh ?
 
You can get an iMac with 32 GB of RAM and 12 TB is also easily available via TB (at the same speed as an internal RAID in the Mac Pro). The Mac Pro is only faster if you need more than 32 GB of RAM or have fully multi-threaded applications (or do really fancy stuff like PCI-slot based SSDs).

Or if you need a PCI-e hardware for your work. (Until TB versions of all those cards are available)

Btw, fully multi threaded applications in the professional world aren't that few. Any app which does rendering of some kind is usually scalable to as many cores as possible.
 
who the **** cares about retina display on an already 1080p+ hd 27" display, it's the most retarded hype, fueled by a bunch of nitwits who could barely comprehend what the word resolution means.

Even ivy bridge doesnt matter that much in reality, just give us a better graphic card and a 500mb/sec ssd in the imac and call it day. release it already!
 
who the **** cares about retina display on an already 1080p+ hd 27" display, it's the most retarded hype, fueled by a bunch of nitwits who could barely comprehend what the word resolution means.

Even ivy bridge doesnt matter that much in reality, just give us a better graphic card and a 500mb/sec ssd in the imac and call it day. release it already!

Agree with you and I'm sure that is all it will be. Just waiting because they can do so to keep themselves in the media and give the Macbooks continued attention for a bit longer.
 
who the **** cares about retina display on an already 1080p+ hd 27" display, it's the most retarded hype, fueled by a bunch of nitwits who could barely comprehend what the word resolution means.

Because obviously you understand what it means ? 110 PPI on the 1440p 27" display (2560x1440) isn't as high as you like to think. ;)
 
Anti-Glare screen + USB3.0 and decent SSD will do it for me.

I'm sure some have already mentioned this but as I have been working with designers for the past 6+ years, I've seen many using iMacs and they are constantly stressed with the glossy super reflective screens. Yes, it may not be much of an issue for younger guys out there but the stress in your eyes really builds up causing major VDT issues.

Retina sure has less glare but when it comes down to serious designing and printing, retina displays in my opinion is pretty hard to calibrate colors and matching it with your printer. Mostly worried that the display will show much sharper images than the prints. Color calibration will probably be difficult. (If any one has detailed info on color calibration and have test prints that matches to their Retina display, please share with us the best solution for this)

This being said, I only need an anti-glare option + USB3.0 (for transferring gigs of data storage) + SSD for fast operation.

Yes, I know you can simply connect a monitor for photos and graphics for full Adobe RGB color adjustments but even in that case, a anti-glare screen will help.
 
Or if you need a PCI-e hardware for your work. (Until TB versions of all those cards are available)

Sonnet are already offering external Thunderbolt-driven boxes that can take one or two PCIe cards. Sit down and move away from any fragile objects before you look up the price, though. The only thing that will bring those devices down in price is demand and volume.

As for the iMacs, isn't the best guess (in the absence of other information) that they'll do exactly what they did with the MacBook Pro range?

I.e. bump the existing lineup to Ivy Bridge and USB3 and release a new, slimline SSD-only "retina iMac" with no optical drive or Firewire and only solid-state storage - possibly with a 21" display if 27" retina is not feasible.

That lets them put a toe in the water to see how people react to the design changes.
 
First read #2 in my message.

Now, 20/20 is nominal value. Meaning your eyes are considered good enough that they don't need to be corrected. Now, for average acuity.
From one study regarding angular resolution and acuity:

I did read your number 2. I was too subtle in my reply. As you are surely aware, when you have greater than 20/20 vision, it isn't uncommon to have difficulty seeing things at close range. The Snellen chart only measures your visual acuity 20 feet away from the object; we don't have a near sight chart and it isn't typically tested for unless the patients explicitly mention difficulties reading up close to their doctors, or mention eye-strain/headaches.

Sure, some, perhaps most (when young), with 20/10 and 20/15 see text up close just fine, especially when they accommodate muscularly (which can cause eye strain), but a portion of those people with greater than 20/20 vision are actually hyperopic, though this goes unnoticed. It is much less of a problem than being myopic when you are young, but when you get old it's the other way around. In your studies does it mention the proportion of people with greater than 20/20 who end up needing reading glasses later in life?

That's why, I presume, the nominal value is set at 20/20. As I said, it tends to be the best overall balance and is the least likely to cause eye-strain from muscular accommodation, which, again, becomes harder to accomplish the older you get. Too much muscular accommodation also tends, because of the eye strain, to cause headaches. Doctors could easily prescribe stronger prescriptions to achieve greater than 20/20, but it tends to cause more trouble than it is worth.

Now if I'm misinformed, please let me know as I find this topic particularly interesting.
 
Last edited:
I just came back from buying a 13" MBP and I was seriously considering the retina model until I went and spent some time hands on, for me the difference was minor in many areas and it is analogous to having 1080p on a small HDTV, it just doesn't make that much difference. I am planning to buy an iMac (21.5 or 27" not sure still) but retina would not make me want or care more, especially at the insane price it would come in at and the huge bandwidth needs that I can't see being feasible. Retina may be the buzzword but I'd just like a nice high resolution screen within reason for the display size and I'm good. Giving up the HDD, optical drive, and ethernet port (and the open cooling vents) all didn't help sway me to the retina MBP either.
 
As for the iMacs, isn't the best guess (in the absence of other information) that they'll do exactly what they did with the MacBook Pro range?

I.e. bump the existing lineup to Ivy Bridge and USB3 and release a new, slimline SSD-only "retina iMac" with no optical drive or Firewire and only solid-state storage - possibly with a 21" display if 27" retina is not feasible.

Advantages and disadvantages of design decisions are not the same.

iMac doesn't need additional space for a bigger battery. Saving weight isn't particularly important, and neither is less thickness.

There was a good reason to have soldered RAM, blade SSD, no optical drive, in the Retina MBP, to reduce weight and size while increasing the battery size. In an iMac, much less reason. Ivy Bridge + USB3 would of course be very welcome.
 
I'm not derailing the topic. All I said was that £2300 for the MBP Retina was very expensive IMHO. I don't care how it compares to the MBP non-retina. I was making a very simple point which you seem to want to complicate. £2300 is a lot of money for a 15" laptop. It's certainly the most expensive laptop I've ever seen. I don't think they will sell many of them at that price.

IN the case of thinking it's an obscenely expensive laptop, you're absolutely right.

In the case of thinking people will not shell out $2500++ for a 15" laptop, you're absolutely wrong.

I personally find it baffling, but I predict most of them will find their ways into messenger bags and then ridden on a Fixie to the dingiest East Village coffee shop so the owner can sit in his PBR T-shirt and non-prescription Ray-Ban specs sipping chai latte and "working".

Of course, I'm generalizing. I love the East Village.
 
Aside from the glare under certain lighting conditions the current imac screens have excellent image quality...They just need an antiglare option and perhaps address some issues (dust)...Add usb 3.0, make the hard drive easily accessible, add ssd (hope prices come down), and maybe a spec bump accross the board....

Oh, SUPPORT IMPORT OF M2TS VIDEO FILES....
 
who the **** cares about retina display on an already 1080p+ hd 27" display, it's the most retarded hype, fueled by a bunch of nitwits who could barely comprehend what the word resolution means.

Even ivy bridge doesnt matter that much in reality, just give us a better graphic card and a 500mb/sec ssd in the imac and call it day. release it already!

Exactly. It's the same crowd of "enthusiasts" that write dumbass stuff like "I want my new iPad to be rocking liquid metal". They're a mindless, but really important, group of Apple consumers. That's why a smart Apple builds devices for the "rocking killer tech" crowd as well as products like the Mac Pro meant for adults.
 
I see no chance for a 27" retina this year or within the next 24 months. The GPU and cooling required won't work in the iMac form factor.
 
I'm not derailing the topic. All I said was that £2300 for the MBP Retina was very expensive IMHO. I don't care how it compares to the MBP non-retina. I was making a very simple point which you seem to want to complicate. £2300 is a lot of money for a 15" laptop. It's certainly the most expensive laptop I've ever seen. I don't think they will sell many of them at that price.

Everyone with money here in the USA will be buying them. Income inequality in America is extreme. There are about twenty million Americans who can afford to buy two while the other two hundred eighty million can't purchase one.

This is called "The American Dream"
 
10.1.5 was released June 5th 2002. Did it get other updates after that (just small security updates ?), I dunno.

Usually, Apple supports current + 1 version back. With them moving to a yearly cycle (as they said they would starting with Mountain Lion), it remains to be seen how this will work out (2 years of updates to your OS ?).

Sorry if I quote you, but I cannot get the original poster.

As of May 2012, Windows XP market share is at 26.8%. Considering that Windows own ~90% of the market share of PCs would be really inconsiderate to not support security updates for XP. XP has also more market share than Vista which was their previous release.

The latest oldest release I found was 10.4.11 in 2007.
Tiger is at 0.29% as for September, 2011.

source
 
I'm not derailing the topic. All I said was that £2300 for the MBP Retina was very expensive IMHO. I don't care how it compares to the MBP non-retina. I was making a very simple point which you seem to want to complicate. £2300 is a lot of money for a 15" laptop. It's certainly the most expensive laptop I've ever seen. I don't think they will sell many of them at that price.

You can say it's expensive. Just remember that expensive is not equal to overpriced.

Have you seen Sony's Vaio? They are priced the same as MBP.

VAIO Z £2,593.99
(Was starting from £1,024 I added some upgrades, the most expensive was the SSD which was starting at 128GB)

Intel®Core(TM)i7-3612QM,2.1GHz
Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium
512 GB SATA Gen3 Flash SSD
8 GB 1600 MHz DDR3-SDRAM
33.2 cm LCD, 1920x1080 Premium
Wireless WAN
Longe-Life battery
Backlight keyboard
Internet Security - 1 year
Also Included
English (QWERTY)
Intel® HD Graphics 4000
Wireless LAN (IEEE 802.11abgn)
HDMI(TM) output
Bluetooth® 4.0

Alienware M18x starts at £1,698 you can get up to £4,449


-----

Fair comparison:

VAIO Z £1,754 vs rMBP £1,799
i7 2.1GHz // i7 2.3GHz
HD4000 // HD4000 + NVIDIA GT 650M
both 8GB RAM
both 256GB SSD
13.1" screen // 15" screen
1920x1080 // 2880x1800
 
Last edited:
Here is an interesting pattern some might want to note.

Apple "all hands meeting" sometime between Feb22-Feb25
Ipad 3 launch date March 7th.

Apple "all hands meeting" May 22nd.
rMBP launch date June 11th.

Apple "all hands meeting" June 24th
iMac launch date ??July??(with or prior to an already announced OS update)

All this talk of "apple doesn't hold all hands meeting prior to product launch" is complete bologna.

:apple:
 
I see no chance for a 27" retina this year or within the next 24 months. The GPU and cooling required won't work in the iMac form factor.

It has been demonstrated that the GPU and CPU in the Retina MBP are capable of pushing the pixels needed for a 27" Retina display. I'm not quite sure why having three times the area and six times the volume available would make cooling the iMac harder than cooling the Retina MBP.

And seriously, "no chance within the next 24 months"???


Alienware M18x starts at £1,698 you can get up to £4,449

I checked an Alienware a week ago because it seemed to be the only quad core Dell laptop. Equivalent specs to the Retina MBP were a bit more expensive, with 18" 1920x1080 screen, and no mention of weight or battery life to be found anywhere.
 
You can say it's expensive. Just remember that expensive is not equal to overpriced.

Have you seen Sony's Vaio? They are priced the same as MBP.

Yeah because SONY is a great reference if you're trying to make a not-so-overpriced point :/

Asus G55VW-RS71

Ivy Bridge Core i7 2.3
Nvidia GeForceGTX 660m w/2gb DDR5
15.6" LED 1920x1080
8GB DDR3
256gb SSD (SATA III)
OPTICAL DRIVE: Yes
SEX APPEAL: No.

BUT

$1588 USD.

Max out the RAM to 32gb 1600 DDR3 and the price is still only $1907.99 USD.

http://www.pro-star.com/index.cfm?m...id=20074624&ramid=80146323&batteryid=10130400

I can't stand it when people compare the most expensive thing on the market to the second most expensive thing on the market.

It's like saying "You can't call a Bentley overpriced if you compare it to a Rolls."
 
As it stands, the Retina display is a cost free option on MacBook Pros by virtue of comparable specifications between Retina and non-Retina models.

Yes if you think the regular MBP lineup is a loss leader. Anyone with a normal IQ and with a chemically sound mind can see that Apple's profit margin on those "classic" machines is around sixty percent.
 
I personally find it baffling, but I predict most of them will find their ways into messenger bags and then ridden on a Fixie to the dingiest East Village coffee shop so the owner can sit in his PBR T-shirt and non-prescription Ray-Ban specs sipping chai latte and "working".
It's clear from this that you find a lot of things baffling.

Just because the only retina MBPs you see are when you are hanging out in a dingy East Village coffee shop watching people sip chai latte doesn't mean that's where most of them end up.
 
Last edited:
Yes if you think the regular MBP lineup is a loss leader. Anyone with a normal IQ and with a chemically sound mind can see that Apple's profit margin on those "classic" machines is around sixty percent.

You're changing the debate, that's not what we're talking about. Don't move the goal posts on me.

----------

Sorry if I quote you, but I cannot get the original poster.

As of May 2012, Windows XP market share is at 26.8%. Considering that Windows own ~90% of the market share of PCs would be really inconsiderate to not support security updates for XP. XP has also more market share than Vista which was their previous release.

The latest oldest release I found was 10.4.11 in 2007.
Tiger is at 0.29% as for September, 2011.

source

Are you implying that correlation implies causation ? Maybe people don't stick with older versions of OS X precisely because Apple drops support ?

Maybe XP is current - 2 (ie, Windows XP is to Windows 7 what Leopard is to Lion) and that affects adoption ?

Maybe enterprise customers don't want to migrate off because of application/hardware support, a hurdle Apple doesn't quite face in light of poor enterprise support ?

Maybe...

Apple drops support faster than Microsoft does. That's it. Don't try to move goalposts on me also (what is it with the goalpost moving ? Facts were presented, they do not support your argument, move on).
 
It has been demonstrated that the GPU and CPU in the Retina MBP are capable of pushing the pixels needed for a 27" Retina display.

The hardware might be there to drive a monitor with a 4k or greater resolution, but how much would such a panel at 27" cost? The Eizo 30" 4k monitor recently announced will go for over $30,000.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.