Retina vs high res antiglare

You can get more desktop space with the retina. You can set the retina at equivalent desktop space of 1440x900, 1680x1050 or 1920x1200.

 

Can even do 2880x1800 if your eyes can handle it.

 

If you read a lot of text, your eyes will thank you if you get the retina. Desktop space is a wash.

 

17" 1920x1200 here, anti glare.

I prefer it to the Retina.

 

No, no they won't, especially if an app you use is not optimized for a Retina display.

Only if you run the rMBP at a scaled resolution of 1680x1050. At the Retina's default "best" of 1440x900, antiglare wins for desktop space.

 

I vote for Retina. It just offers more flexibility - you can choose any resolution you want.

Of course, if you don't use the native 1440x900, it will have to do some extra work, but in my opinion it can be lived with.

 

It is a package.

cMBP can have anti-glare which makes a LOT of sense if you are living in a nice sunny environment and like to work under natural light. Also, has space for an optibay for a second hard drive and you can upgrade the RAM yourself. And the resolution is great for the 15" display.

rMBP is a different beast, thinner, super screen, super resolution but not anti-glare (although better than glossy standard displays). Much harder to upgrade, too.

You may weigh your needs and choose, both are great for what they are supposed to do.

But, if it is going to be on the desk all the time, and desktop space is what you need, may I suggest you also look at the Mac Mini and a Thunderbolt Display. TB is glossy, though, not anti-glare, but you may also look at other 30" displays like Dell.

 

Bold:
Get an iMac, or as the other poster said a mini and a screen.

 

yeah, me too - I prefer real screenspace, instead of wasteful eyecandy...

 

I agree. I use the default resolution for my 15in. rMBP