So what exactly should the MBPr be called?

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
 

beamer8912

macrumors 65816
May 30, 2009
1,137
1
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.
 

FatGuy007

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 8, 2012
326
0
New York
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.
 

Dangerous Theory

macrumors 68000
Jul 28, 2011
1,981
28
UK
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.
 

cambookpro

macrumors 603
Feb 3, 2010
6,463
1,909
United Kingdom
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.
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?
 

ixodes

macrumors 601
Jan 11, 2012
4,430
2
Pacific Coast, USA
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 :)
 

FatGuy007

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 8, 2012
326
0
New York
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.
 

mac jones

macrumors 68040
Apr 6, 2006
3,257
1
Just as long as it's not "The NEW MBP".

They would do better just picking words out of a dictionary blindfolded.
 

beamer8912

macrumors 65816
May 30, 2009
1,137
1
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.
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.
 

FatGuy007

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 8, 2012
326
0
New York
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.
But some people aren't buying a rMBP because they dont want to carry a ethernet adapter or a Superdrive around.
 

beamer8912

macrumors 65816
May 30, 2009
1,137
1
But some people aren't buying a rMBP because they dont want to carry a ethernet adapter or a Superdrive around.
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)
 

FatGuy007

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 8, 2012
326
0
New York
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)
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.
 

AzN1337c0d3r

macrumors 6502
Sep 13, 2010
448
1
802.11ac WiFi achieves gigabit speeds. This means ethernet is quickly becoming obsolete.
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.
A lot of corporations/educational institutions actually still run Windows XP desktops.
 
Last edited:

beamer8912

macrumors 65816
May 30, 2009
1,137
1
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.
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?

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
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.
 

Panini

macrumors regular
Jun 12, 2012
204
0
Palo Alto, CA
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."
 

geoffreak

macrumors 68020
Feb 8, 2008
2,193
2
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.
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:

beamer8912

macrumors 65816
May 30, 2009
1,137
1
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.
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:

AzN1337c0d3r

macrumors 6502
Sep 13, 2010
448
1
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.
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.

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?!
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.
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.
 

Roman2K~

macrumors 6502a
Mar 11, 2011
552
16
@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.

Actually, the official name is MacBook Pro (Retina, Mid 2012).
That would make sense but where did you get this information?