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

So what exactly should the MBPr be called?

F

FatGuy007

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 8, 2012
326
0
New York
This is kind of a stupid question, but the same thing happened with the iPad 3, or new iPad or whatever. The Apple site listed it as the "the MacBook Pro with retina display" which is an incredibly long title for a device. So I started calling it the MacBook Pro retina, than I see amazon and google results of the retina MacBook, MacBook retina, retina display MacBook Pro, MacBook Pro 2012. This will kind of be annoying when your searching for cases, sleeves, etc so what do you think should the MBPr be called or what's the most popular? Imagine how cheesy it will be when somebody ask what computer it is and you say "the MacBook Pro with retina display, Innovation in every dimension" :p
 
On the forums I've seen it abbreviated as rMBP.

The smart money says Apple will drop the "with Retina Display" next year when they drop the cMBP, going back to just MBP. All Macbook Pro's will come with a Retina Display, thus there won't be a need to differentiate between them.
 
That's not fully true, if they are willing to have an extra hundred dollars if all were retina, the apple market wouldn't do that. I won't be surprised if they remove the regular 15 mbp but if they remove the regular 13 mbp that's stupid because it's the most bought Mac system.
 
For the purpose of technical discussion we just make up some abbreviation to make it clear what we're talking about. If some one out of this context asked what laptop I had I would just tell them a macbook. No need to be pretentious and scream about how it's the latest 2012 £1800 version with high density screen etc.
 
FatGuy007 said:
That's not fully true, if they are willing to have an extra hundred dollars if all were retina, the apple market wouldn't do that. I won't be surprised if they remove the regular 15 mbp but if they remove the regular 13 mbp that's stupid because it's the most bought Mac system.
Click to expand...

But then Apple replaced the best selling iPod, the iPod mini, with the iPod nano. Why wouldn't they replace the 13" MBP with a 13" retina model?
 
Since Apple's in a rage and very public attack on Google, it could be called:

The ChromeBook Crushing, Mountain Lion Powered, Retina Equipped Killer MacBook Pro.

Or "CBCMLPREKMBP" for short.

That ought to thrill the Apple Advocates :)
 
Because the MBP 13 is actually best selling. Would the majority of the people like having no disc drives or Ethernet ports, think about that. They didn't subtract anything from the iPod collection, they just added more.
 
Just as long as it's not "The NEW MBP".

They would do better just picking words out of a dictionary blindfolded.
 
FatGuy007 said:
That's not fully true, if they are willing to have an extra hundred dollars if all were retina, the apple market wouldn't do that. I won't be surprised if they remove the regular 15 mbp but if they remove the regular 13 mbp that's stupid because it's the most bought Mac system.
Click to expand...

Chances are in the next year costs will come down and the price of the retina display won't add quite as much to the cost of the laptop. I wouldn't be surprised if they're able to replace the entry level 13" and 15" with retina equivalents at the same price.

We've seen this before. When the MBA was introduce it carried an entry price of $1800. Now it costs $1000.
 
beamer8912 said:
Chances are in the next year costs will come down and the price of the retina display won't add quite as much to the cost of the laptop. I wouldn't be surprised if they're able to replace the entry level 13" and 15" with retina equivalents at the same price.

We've seen this before. When the MBA was introduce it carried an entry price of $1800. Now it costs $1000.
Click to expand...

But some people aren't buying a rMBP because they dont want to carry a ethernet adapter or a Superdrive around.
 
FatGuy007 said:
But some people aren't buying a rMBP because they dont want to carry a ethernet adapter or a Superdrive around.
Click to expand...

This argument has been made, and its weak to say the least.

We have the Mac App Store, CDs are obsolete and are quickly going the way of the floppy disk.

802.11ac WiFi achieves gigabit speeds. This means ethernet is quickly becoming obsolete.

Apple has always been forward thinking. If you embrace the future, you'll be just fine. Otherwise, I think you can still find some old copies of Windows XP. (That last one is meant to be a joke :D)
 
beamer8912 said:
This argument has been made, and its weak to say the least.

We have the Mac App Store, CDs are obsolete and are quickly going the way of the floppy disk.

802.11ac WiFi achieves gigabit speeds. This means ethernet is quickly becoming obsolete.

Apple has always been forward thinking. If you embrace the future, you'll be just fine. Otherwise, I think you can still find some old copies of Windows XP. (That last one is meant to be a joke :D)
Click to expand...

If you don't know already, disc drives are not used for applications their used to install bootcamp, music albums, games, application, burning movies, bluray, movie streaming, and many more.
When it comes to internet, Wifi is nothing close to the direct contact of Ethernet.
PLUS, you cannot replace the ssd, battery, or ram on the retina. While the Macbook Pro can replace all those things. Though I love the retina much more, other people may not.
 
802.11ac WiFi achieves gigabit speeds. This means ethernet is quickly becoming obsolete.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse negotiated link speed with actual bandwidth. 802.11n 300 Mbps maxes out around 100-150 Mbps in the same room (depending on how close to the router I sit). While 1000TBase routinely does 900 Mbps or more across the house.

Ethernet is also important for more than bandwidth, it has an order of magnitude lower latency than 802.11ac.

Otherwise, I think you can still find some old copies of Windows XP.
Click to expand...

A lot of corporations/educational institutions actually still run Windows XP desktops.
 
Last edited:
FatGuy007 said:
If you don't know already, disc drives are not used for applications their used to install bootcamp, music albums, games, application, burning movies, bluray, movie streaming, and many more.
When it comes to internet, Wifi is nothing close to the direct contact of Ethernet.
PLUS, you cannot replace the ssd, battery, or ram on the retina. While the Macbook Pro can replace all those things. Though I love the retina much more, other people may not.
Click to expand...

All music can be bought on iTunes or any other service, or spotify can be used. If you're just working on ripping your entire library, what is the point of using the hard drive once to rip your library and then be forced to carry it around with you for the rest of the laptops life? That's like buying a minivan because you're going to move once, but the rest of the time you're just going to drive to work.

How are disc drives used for movie streaming? :rolleyes:

Literally everything you listed is available via digital download. Have you heard of Stream? iTunes? Netflix? The App Store? And the many other services available?

AzN1337c0d3r said:
Don't confuse negotiated link speed with actual bandwidth. 802.11n 300 Mbps maxes out around 100-150 Mbps in the same room (depending on how close to the router I sit). While 1000TBase routinely does 900 Mbps or more across the house. If you wire your house

Ethernet is also important for more than bandwidth, it has an order of magnitude lower latency than 802.11ac.

A lot of corporations/educational institutions actually still run Windows XP desktops. That's why I suggested it if you're going to stay in the past. One of the best OS's ever made
Click to expand...

The theoretical limit of this wireless-ac router is 867Mbps close to that of the theoretical limit of gigabit ethernet (1000TBase). Needless to say, Wifi has come within a factor of 2 of ethernet. So I would say, its beginning to make ethernet obsolete.

If that's not enough for you, WiGig (802.11ad) is expected sometime in 2014. That will offer a theoretical throughput of 7Gbps, vastly outpacing gigabit ethernet unless you're going to start wiring your house with fiber optics.
 
I think the name is long since, pretty soon, the retina macbook pro will be the only remaining macbook pro. They will simply refer to it as the macbook pro, and it will be known that the 15" model possesses an incredibly high resolution - it will just be "one of those things."
 
beamer8912 said:
The theoretical limit of this wireless-ac router is 867Mbps close to that of the theoretical limit of gigabit ethernet (1000TBase). Needless to say, Wifi has come within a factor of 2 of ethernet. So I would say, its beginning to make ethernet obsolete.

If that's not enough for you, WiGig (802.11ad) is expected sometime in 2014. That will offer a theoretical throughput of 7Gbps, vastly outpacing gigabit ethernet unless you're going to start wiring your house with fiber optics.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why 10 gigabit Ethernet exists ;)
(and 100 gigabit Ethernet)

Also, keep in mind, LTE has a theoretical 100 Mb/s to 1 Gb/s speed. The difference between theory and reality can be quickly discerned by asking any LTE user. The same is true (though not quite as drastic) for any other wireless standard such as WiFi.

Next, throughput ≠ internet bandwidth. Overhead in WiFi is quite large, meaning that the theoretical limit must be significantly (arguably an entire power of 10) higher than a wired technology to even somewhat be considered on par.

Finally, have you talked with an online gamer about wired vs wireless? I'm sure they will quickly point out the response time on wired is much better than wireless.
 
Last edited:
geoffreak said:
Which is exactly why 10 gigabit Ethernet exists ;)

Also, keep in mind, LTE has a theoretical 100 Mb/s to 1 Gb/s speed. The difference between theory and reality can be quickly discerned by asking any LTE user. The same is true (though not quite as drastic) for any other wireless standard such as WiFi.

Next, throughput ≠ internet bandwidth. Overhead in WiFi is quite large, meaning that the theoretical limit must be significantly (arguably an entire power of 10) higher than a wired technology to even somewhat be considered on par.

Finally, have you talked with an online gamer about wired vs wireless? I'm sure they will quickly point out the response time on wired is much better than wireless.
Click to expand...

You're right, there is a difference between the theoretical bandwidth and what you'll actually see. However, most of those 10Gb connections require fiber optics (Which I mentioned!!!!). The copper ones don't seem well received (< 1 million units). In fact, in general they don't seem well recieved. Only 6 million units in the first 3 years of production?!

All this is moot since most people get <100 Mbps from their ISP, essentially making this conversation pointless since both standards are well past that standard. Otherwise, we're talking a 20-30% difference between the two.

Also, a gamer complaining of ping would also be complaining that they're using a laptop! Again, moot point.

edit: This conversation has gotten off track. The point wasn't whether or not WiFi or ethernet is technically better. Rather my point was that WiFi has become more than adequately fast to replace ethernet. I agree ethernet is still 1.2-1.5x as fast, but that will make very little difference.
 
Last edited:
If that's not enough for you, WiGig (802.11ad) is expected sometime in 2014. That will offer a theoretical throughput of 7Gbps, vastly outpacing gigabit ethernet unless you're going to start wiring your house with fiber optics.
Click to expand...

WiGig is going to be running on 60 GHz spectrum. At those frequencies, wifi signals couldn't penetrate a piece of paper, let alone walls. You'll literally have to be in the same room as the device.

beamer8912 said:
You're right, there is a difference between the theoretical bandwidth and what you'll actually see. However, most of those 10Gb connections require fiber optics (Which I mentioned!!!!). The copper ones don't seem well received (< 1 million units). In fact, in general they don't seem well recieved. Only 6 million units in the first 3 years of production?!
Click to expand...

As opposed to 0 units for 802.11ac which isn't even out of draft yet?

Also 802.11ac has 500 Mbps maximum for single link, not 1 Gb/s as you claim previously. Given protocol overhead, you'll see 300 Mbps, maximum.

All this is a far cry from the 900 Mbps+ possible with an ordinary run of the mill 1000TBase Ethernet.

By the time that 802.11ac moves out of draft, 10GBase-T Ethernet (10GBase-T refers to 10 gigabits over copper) will be the norm.

All this is moot since most people get <100 Mbps from their ISP, essentially making this conversation pointless since both standards are well past that standard. Otherwise, we're talking a 20-30% difference between the two.

Rather my point was that WiFi has become more than adequately fast to replace ethernet. I agree ethernet is still 1.2-1.5x as fast, but that will make very little difference.
Click to expand...

I don't use my ISP to move my 1.2 TB collection of TV shows/movies/games around. Gigabit ethernet is still an order of magnitude faster than 802.11n when it comes to such applications. But that's not even my main use of Ethernet in my house. I use Ethernet to distribute compilation jobs to all my machines. Such a task is bottlenecked on latency and 1000TBase typically exhibits 100 times less latency.
 
@OP: This is not a stupid question at all, quite the contrary.

I think the answer is written on the bottom, where it says "MacBook Pro" and a bunch of IDs.

G-Mo said:
Actually, the official name is MacBook Pro (Retina, Mid 2012).
Click to expand...

That would make sense but where did you get this information?
 
In about this Mac
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2012-08-07 at 2.45.14 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2012-08-07 at 2.45.14 AM.png
    158.7 KB · Views: 87
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