Why don't they put Retina in the old MacBook Pro? (just Mac beginner looking for answer)
Up-selling.
Why don't they put Retina in the old MacBook Pro? (just Mac beginner looking for answer)
Why don't they put Retina in the old MacBook Pro? (just Mac beginner looking for answer)
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).
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.
Or if you need a PCI-e hardware for your work. (Until TB versions of all those cards are available)
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:
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 ?).
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.
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.
Alienware M18x starts at £1,698 you can get up to £4,449
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.
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.
It's clear from this that you find a lot of things baffling.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".
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.
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
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.