I know the resolutions higher and everything but seriously? is it that difficult, if games can run at insane resolutions and be playable (Left 4 Dead 2 Steam High Settings) yet Facebook cannot be rendered correctly and is almost unusable. I know some of the issues will be resolved in Mountain Lion, but is there literally nothing else that can be done about this? that Apple is potentially working on updates for as we speak...?
I call this an issue of tuning. It's possible that it will be addressed before long.
I abandoned aperture several years ago for LR and I'm not going back. At adobes usual glacial pace of upgrades, by the time LR and cs are retina aware haswell will be out.
Rip on Adobe all you like, but lightroom is a solid product, and they were quicker than Apple at releasing 64 bit versions of their products. Some of what they take is quite fair, but there are other problems where they're held up by Apple. We're not talking about a next release kind of thing anyway. Give them a month or two and you should see a patch.
It is hard to call 18fps a really playable framerate. 30 fps is also not so good result. It seems that he moved a baseline fps limit down and created a new standard, just because Apple adopt hi-res Retina display. We can get to the point that 10fps is a great result because it is Apple
Anand also compared MBP 2011 with rMBP 2012 - two different products. Why did not he compare MBP 2012 with rMBP 2012 it and MBP 2011 with MBP 2012 ? I do not know, but such comparison is more reasonable to test two products from the same year with the same electronics, but just different cooling system and to verify improvement MBP 2012 over 2011 model. I wonder how much effective is a new cooling system and vent holes in rMBP vs classic MBP.
It seems like FPS games would be the worst given those kinds of framerates. It's still valid to compare to something from the last generation. He may have lacked a 2012 MBP on hand, and they're not that far apart.
I'm a photographer as well and your comparison is very informative.
I looked at those benchmarks, and it shows me a really fantastic black level and a much higher maximum contrast than on the matte display.
On the other side is the slightly less bright white and a slightly reduced gamut. The less bright white is probably more an advantage, as it will be closer to what's going to be printed.
Not sure what the slightly smaller gamut will mean. I mean, one really has to see which colors can and cannot be displayed.
Contrast is overstated to a degree with photography. If your work goes to print, it will never be seen with contrast that approaches 1000:1. Smooth gamma curve, good representation of non-primary color mixes, neutral greys, shadow detail, consistent color temperature from highlights to shadows (overlaps with neutral greys) are things that should matter. Contrast for the sake of contrast will show you very little benefit. The gamut thing isn't easy to interpret. Just showing its size doesn't tell you what out of your typical working space can be displayed properly on screen. It's also important how it ages. Reproducible/useful gamut can shift over the life of the display. All displays drift. Anyway this is an area where you really don't want to get caught up in spec charts, because they tell you so little about how the display will benefit you in your work.
Define consumer as you wish. There's nothing in the dictionary that states a Professional device must be upgradable.
I wouldn't necessarily argue upgradable. Set up for little downtime could be a real factor. This is something you're kind of losing as components like drives and batteries that are sealed in. Both were serviceable at one point. Both are expendable.
the 1GB of frame buffer isn't the issue. It's one of overall bandwidth which only more efficient software and newer GPU can handle.
Anand says that Apple is probably really looking forward to Haswell and Broadwell architectures because both will come with a significant graphics core upgrade.
I agree with Anand here. I didn't really expect such a thing until more like Haswell, but they probably wanted to make the update more impressive for this year. If Intel comes through on a moderate portion of their promises for Haswell, it will still be a compelling upgrade.
Well my 2011 2.2 bought at $2400 last year is going for $1200 on ebay. So I'm out $1200 even before auction/PayPal fees. Depreciation may/may not be as high on the rMBP pending on how much better Haswell rMBP will be. Either case if you have a 2011 mbp without a ssd, I'd just get a ssd for it now for the speed boost as it'll be almost as quick as the rMBP in most tasks of course minus gaming/display quality. You'll lose much less with that choice
It happens. Apple dropped the refurb store pricing significantly on those, and the upgrades (2.2 was the mid 15" in early 2011) are outpaced by differences in cpu/gpu generations. This is why I tell people not to buy tech items for residual value. They're sunken costs. Usually if the resale value is exceptional, it's because what you can buy new for the same price isn't entirely compelling as an upgrade.
I'm thinking that the whole suite wont be until CS 6.5. I use a large range of Adobe CS too.
Right now, I'm on the fence re: canceling my order. I'm expecting the base w/ the 16GB upgrade (~$2,400) What's a reasonable expected resell value for a Macbook Pro a year from now? I'm guessing that this one will retain decently considering that it's the first of a new generation. If I could get a decent amount back, I will keep and resell. If it's a major loss, I do have a HP Envy 17 3D (SB i7, 16GB, 6850m, SSD + HDD + BR) to hold me over for another tear.
Overall the bigger structured gains from intel are likely to be on tock years. They update the architecture and release pretty marketing materials saying look how much faster this is. At that point a cheaper one outpaces yours, especially if Apple moves the new design down to the lower price point as well. We can all speculate how long that might take, but no one really knows. Just remember tech items are basically sunken costs. An extra .2 ghz does very little for resale value later if the new ones outpace it across the board. I don't suggest buying any computer based on potential resale value unless you're willing to sell at potentially inconvenient times.
