Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Retina Hardly Noticeable
- Thread starter xShane
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well; when I got my iPad 4 it was awesome and then the novelty went off. And before you know it your brand new Apple product's obsolete.
Your right i did get it mixed up with this thread that you are posting on complaining about the retina.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1553889/
So you have a machine you re happy with? then why all the complaining?
Be happy with what you have....if the retina is not right for you awesome.....you have the cMBP so shut up already. Stop complaining....you didn't buy it.
Only difference is RAM, SSD is a separate module, your case simply does not hold water, as in general newer production techniques bring greater reliability. Any component fails on a cMBP Logic Board and there will be an equally costly repair.
What did that have to do with anything? I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure where it fits in.
I was simply stating my opinion and was curious as to how others felt (and particularly if anyone shared the same view).
I'm happy with what I have and wasn't complaining. Please go take your trolling somewhere else.
Both are from the Anandtech benchmarks.
I accept your benchmark showing the RAM test, but still find it a bit curious. Based on that test, an older-generation (17") MBP is still outperforming a 2012 MBP.
My point isn't to razz the rMBP or say that it somehow performs worse. A benchmark and there shows that it performs slightly better than the 2012 MBP, but I don't think that anyone should buy it thinking that the rMBP offers massive performance gains over the standard MBP. You're buying it for the screen, possibly for the two thunderbolt ports, and possibly for the size and weight decreases over a standard MBP.
How constructive. How about you just stop visiting this thread if it somehow offends you?
Last edited:
Why is the machine as good as dead in 3 years? lol, In 3 years I'll be using the latest and the greatest anyway, but whats the point in saying it's dead after 3 years?
Not everyone buys the latest and greatest all the time. Many users on this forum want 3-5 years of use out of their Apple machines/devices.
That being said, rMBP repairs are expensive/costly. Due to it being a first gen product and so many issues, it's taking a risky bet once your 3 year AppleCare is up.
It refers to "classic" or the non-Retina MacBooks Pros.
----------
Interesting post.
I would be very sceptical about any graphics-related results in OS X. Apple OpenGL drivers are not very good and of course you have the overhead of HiDPI desktop compositing while rendering the game which has not been studied extensively yet. Any graphical comparison should be don in Windows
Well, the 17" MBP in that benchmark seems to use similar-rated DDR3 RAM and also has 8GB L3 cache. I guess the difference between it and the 2012 model is either statistical fluctuation or some difference in the RAM modules themselves.
Couldn't agree more. I was just pointing out one technical benefit of soldered-on RAM. The reason why I got the rMBP was a) reduced weight/size and b) the screen which make my life working with text and code so much more pleasant.
I've never understood the "reduced weight/size" argument. It's only roughly a pound lighter and a few millimeters smaller.
But hey, whatever works for you.
My comment was based the fact that the OP is now in multiple threads complaining about the retina that he does not own...has no intention of owning....so he is bashing it just to bash it.....Why?
I am not complaining nor have I "bashed" it. Want to hear my take on the Retina MacBook Pro, just so we can clarify things?
In theory, it's a great product. However, it's a first gen product and needs some updating. If you're a photo editor or truly *need* the higher resolution, then that's enough justification for buying it. Sure, it might have a better screen. But it's not worth buying purely for the screen if you're a power user that's focused on performance/reliability/upgrade-ability. But like I said previously, if you're a photo editor or you really do need the higher resolution, then it might be the machine for you.
On a side note, you're not contributing anything worthwhile to this discussion, other than calling other users out with intent to provoke a (negative) response.
I think that's more likely you *wanting* not to see the differences.
I own a rMBP, 11" Air which I take on the road and a 27" iMac. After using the rMBP, the 11" Air is as grainy as you can get. The black fonts look greyscale. The 27" iMac is better (than the Air), but is no way near rMBP quality.
Sure, you get used to the iMac. Use it for a couple of weeks and you forget about the fuss of the rMBP. However, switch on the rMBP again and you realise how much better it is. Crisp, clear, great colours. Superb screen.
Quite the contrary -- I wanted it to be *much* better.
I did however notice a difference, I'm not denying that.
Nor do I, we have MBP spanning over five years, the Retina is the best iteration to date, hands down.
More assumption, forums draw those with issue, the vast majority are silent as they are happy with their purchase and the machines function as designed. I personally own a 2.3 Retina and it has zero issue. All Mac`s are costly to repair, it goes with the turf. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that the 2012/2013 Retina, will not prove to be as reliable if not more so than the Early 2008 15" MBP sat on the desk behind me right now.
People should stop making these ridiculous statements about reliability when they have absolutely no figures to back them up, other than they feel as an individual with little or no technical training that there is a perceived reliability issue. The biggest risk here is taking the wrong advice, due to someone else not having the funds, not liking the system, not liking the change, not understanding the technology, or simply not wanting someone else to have a better system.
It`s common sense for most that, all manufacturers strive to build on reliability, performance, cost etc, although here you would thing the opposite of Apple, many are clearly motivated by the above. The Retina MBP is built on decades of experience and today we have the technology to make it work, and it does...
lol.....thats what you are doing with the retina. I think you have retina envy and just want to validate to yourself why you did not get the retina.
The retina is not a first gen product anymore.....Apple released a spec bump to the retina line. If there were any issues they would have taken care of it when they updated the product line with a speed bump. Listen to what the people here are telling you....the retina is the fastest machine that have....even over desktops.....It's funny but I see a retina in your future....
Well, I used to carry around the old 15" model for two over years - home, office, conferences, lectures. And I can tell you - that pound makes very noticeable difference.
Maybe so. We all have different reasons and as long as you're comfortable and happy with it.
Well I for one didn't realise that the Retina MacBook Pro was so superior over the MacBook Pro - I assumed it was purely the screen res.
I guess maybe Apple should have adjusted the name more than simply adding 'retina' which denotes nothing more than resolution.
The old days of MacBook and MacBook Pro names made it much clearer that the Pro was superior in a number of ways whereas "retina" suggests just one.
This is an excellent point and would account for a lot of confusion. I think Apple puts too much emphasis on one "feature" at times.
I agree on the Retina envy and just trying to justify the fact of not having one! But hey, whatever makes someone feel better...
I wasn't pointing to everyone, was simply stating that (I, as in ME) will have the latest and greatest in that time span.
As for the fixing, and the Apple care, I would chalk that up to assumption! How on earth do you, me, or anyone else for that fact know how much it will cost to fix a retina display Mac Book Pro in 3 years time?
Man I gotta say, and I know a few others have touched on it...
Why on earth are you going so hard against the rMBP? I mean we can all clearly see you don't have one, and from your posts would have to guess you don't intend on getting one any time soon. So in general, what's your beef with the machine? Is it that your just trying to justify not buying one, or just trying to hear some others say...Yea your right man, I really don't see a difference either? Or is it just retina envy...lol?
Your post goes to show your ignorance. Did you even read my original/main post? I'm not going hard against Retina. There's certain instances where people might need to buy a Retina MacBook Pro. I was simply stating my view on the issue with regards to the *screen/Retina*.
Chill out.
I found the retina wasn't really usable outside its 900 line mode - you can never *quite* get rid of the blurring from running an LCD at non-native resolution, and it hurt my eyes after a couple of hours in 1050 line mode, so I switched back to 900 (for me, a 1050 cMBP would have been a better buy, but meh.. too late now).
OTOH it is a nice display. Bright and sharp, and games at full 1800 resolution look great.
OTOH it is a nice display. Bright and sharp, and games at full 1800 resolution look great.