Torn between Hi-res anti-glare vs Retina MacBook Pro

[Gallion]

After having been on a 17" MBP with an anti-glare display, everyday, for over a year and a half, I've been very annoyed by the glare of the Retina display I saw today in store.
Plus, unless you need to stick your face 6 inches away from the screen, I don't think you will notice a huge difference in resolution between the 2. I know I only noticed one with the Retina display when looking from 6 inches away... which I don't ever do in normal times.

 

[varunsanthanam]

After having been on a 17" MBP with an anti-glare display, everyday, for over a year and a half, I've been very annoyed by the glare of the Retina display I saw today in store.
Plus, unless you need to stick your face 6 inches away from the screen, I don't think you will notice a huge difference between the 2. I know I only noticed one with the Retina display when looking from 6 inches away... which I don't ever do in normal times.

Go with the retina-- the all flash architecture is incredibly fast and the retina display has much less of a glare the than the glossy cMBP due to 1 less layer of glass. No denying that it will glare than your matte 17 cMBP, but I really think the pixel density of the rMBP is totally worth it

 

[dblissmn]

The lamination on the rMBP display really does make a difference. I have an anti-glare 15 from a couple of years ago because I cannot stand Apple's regular glossy display implementation, but the rMBP finally gets rid of the feeling I have of staring at a monitor through a fish bowl. Yes, the lamination works as the marketing people claim it does, and I'll go a step farther; I think it controls glare to the point where the reflections you still get are now just slightly preferable to the diffused off-axis glare you sometimes get with a matte. On top of which, the resolution scaling has to be seen to be believed. Finally the promise of a truly scalable UI is here. It really does look like native resolution in every HiDPI mode, from 1280x800 all the way to 1920x1200. Match it to the font size of the desktop display you're using, use the most comfortable setting for your eyes, use the largest possible font size to make it legible for a partially sighted relative or a small kid who's learning how to read, or max it out to 1920 fit in a spreadsheet or an HD movie. Your choice.

Get AppleCare though; it's almost impossible to repair. It's a pity Apple hasn't offered a more repairable model. Maybe with better power efficiency from future CPUs and LCDs, they'll be able to go with a smaller and less complicated (i.e. not glued-in all over the entire bottom of the case) battery and then get back to standard components. It's not as though current mSATA cards or 7mm hard drives and SSDs couldn't fit in the Retina dimensions.

 

[nopw]

Forget the Retina. It's a useless feature. Get the Hi-res. Why?

1) You can install your own SSDs and hard drives. Do yourself a favor and install a superfast 256 or 512SSD SSD as your boot and a 1TB into the optical bay as your media drive

2) You can upgrade your own RAM

3) The GPU is faster as it doesn't have to drive a bunch of useless pixels

4) It has ports you don't have to buy adapters for.

5) Anti-glare is awesome compared to the glossy screen the rMBP has.

6) The weight difference is barely noticeable on a day to day basis.

Source: I owned a rMBP, it was all talk and no walk.

This is brings the whole thing to the point.
I ve got a friend who had to make the same decision.

The Retina is pretty GPU hungry, you cant go up to 16GB RAM, and the SSD is not the best you can get.

He decided to go for a 15.4" HighRes Antiglare. Updated to 16GB Corsair Venegeance. Added a SanDisk Extreme SSD 480GB.

Awesome MacBook.

 

[Ploki]

This is brings the whole thing to the point.
I ve got a friend who had to make the same decision.

The Retina is pretty GPU hungry, you cant go up to 16GB RAM, and the SSD is not the best you can get.

He decided to go for a 15.4" HighRes Antiglare. Updated to 16GB Corsair Venegeance. Added a SanDisk Extreme SSD 480GB.

Awesome MacBook.

"The best you can get" SSDs have their price, well above 300$ which you have to pay to apple to get the 512GB SSD in the retina.

Now that retinas have been updated and cMBPs haven't, the price gap between is even crazier (in favor of retina)

Forget the Retina. It's a useless feature. Get the Hi-res. Why?

1) You can install your own SSDs and hard drives. Do yourself a favor and install a superfast 256 or 512SSD SSD as your boot and a 1TB into the optical bay as your media drive

2) You can upgrade your own RAM

3) The GPU is faster as it doesn't have to drive a bunch of useless pixels

4) It has ports you don't have to buy adapters for.

5) Anti-glare is awesome compared to the glossy screen the rMBP has.

6) The weight difference is barely noticeable on a day to day basis.

Source: I owned a rMBP, it was all talk and no walk.

1) You can install superfast (550mb/s) OWC drive. Also, Apple SSDs have gone down in price... You can't get a ~470 mb/s r/w SSD for under 450$. You can get it in your retina for 300$.

2) Point well taken.

3) that doesn't make the GPU faster. In fact, the GPU is faster in retina, so when you run it @1440 * 900 or @1680*1050 (nonHiDPI) it makes it faster. And @1440*900 retina looks no worse than a native uMBP screen. (source: I had both for three weeks...)

4) Retina has 2 highspeed thunderbolt ports that can transform to anything. uMBP has firewire800 which is as good as dead... AND a HDMI port so you can use those two TB ports while driving an external screen...

5) not really. Retina holds up very well to the anti-glare (my cousin has one, we had them side by side)

6) Actually, it's very noticeable if you lug it around everyday.

 

[robvas]

Here are some photos from Anandtech to help compare the reflections from each screen

All three.

Pro (left) Retina (right)

Retina (left) Antiglare (right)

 

[chelch]

just returned my retina today... had it for 2 days before the update...

I plan on getting a new one as soon as refund comes in... but after having the retina in my hands, and primarily playing games, I'm not sure it's that much better than the classic. The games play at 1440x900 anyway.

I do feature length movies about once a year, so I know it will help with that, but so would the classic.

Upgrading the ram looks simple enough. And being able to throw a non-proprietary SSD drive in the DVD caddy looks promising too.

But the retina is the retina...

Tough decision ahead...

 

[Ploki]

just returned my retina today... had it for 2 days before the update...

I plan on getting a new one as soon as refund comes in... but after having the retina in my hands, and primarily playing games, I'm not sure it's that much better than the classic. The games play at 1440x900 anyway.

I do feature length movies about once a year, so I know it will help with that, but so would the classic.

Upgrading the ram looks simple enough. And being able to throw a non-proprietary SSD drive in the DVD caddy looks promising too.

But the retina is the retina...

Tough decision ahead...

I've had mine for about a month. It's awesome... I wouldn't regret getting the classic, but now that it is updated... Nobrainer if you ask me.

 

[demosthenes80]

"The best you can get" SSDs have their price, well above 300$ which you have to pay to apple to get the 512GB SSD in the retina.

Now that retinas have been updated and cMBPs haven't, the price gap between is even crazier (in favor of retina)



1) You can install superfast (550mb/s) OWC drive. Also, Apple SSDs have gone down in price... You can't get a ~470 mb/s r/w SSD for under 450$. You can get it in your retina for 300$.

2) Point well taken.

3) that doesn't make the GPU faster. In fact, the GPU is faster in retina, so when you run it @1440 * 900 or @1680*1050 (nonHiDPI) it makes it faster. And @1440*900 retina looks no worse than a native uMBP screen. (source: I had both for three weeks...)

4) Retina has 2 highspeed thunderbolt ports that can transform to anything. uMBP has firewire800 which is as good as dead... AND a HDMI port so you can use those two TB ports while driving an external screen...

5) not really. Retina holds up very well to the anti-glare (my cousin has one, we had them side by side)

6) Actually, it's very noticeable if you lug it around everyday.

1) Sure you can, but you can also install 2 SSDs in a regular MBP, or 1 SSD+1 1TB 7200RPM drive.

2) No point to be taken, it's simply a fact.

3) I'm not having this argument again in a separate post. rMBP has 4x more pixels it has to drive than the cMBP with the same GPU. (source: I too owned both for several weeks)

4) You do realize MBPs have had a thunderbolt port for a couple years now right? Aside from that, it's more adapters to lose or forget at the house or the office. Sorry, no thanks.

5) No it doesn't. The matte vs. Retina glossy is no contest. Take a look at the comparison pics. Maybe your cousin sanded theirs down.

6) For someone who's laptop is a measurable fraction of their bodyweight, sure. For the rest of us however.

 

[simsaladimbamba]

I'm sure the OP has decided by now

J

Seems so: New rMBP user! Please help out

 

[Ploki]

1) Sure you can, but you can also install 2 SSDs in a regular MBP, or 1 SSD+1 1TB 7200RPM drive.

2) No point to be taken, it's simply a fact.

3) I'm not having this argument again in a separate post. rMBP has 4x more pixels it has to drive than the cMBP with the same GPU. (source: I too owned both for several weeks)

4) You do realize MBPs have had a thunderbolt port for a couple years now right? Aside from that, it's more adapters to lose or forget at the house or the office. Sorry, no thanks.

5) No it doesn't. The matte vs. Retina glossy is no contest. Take a look at the comparison pics. Maybe your cousin sanded theirs down.

6) For someone who's laptop is a measurable fraction of their bodyweight, sure. For the rest of us however.

1) you can install 4 in a windows PC. It boils down to need.

3) Me neither. You having trouble with how computer systems work is another subject. You *can* run rMBP @1440*900 (and it will look just as good as the native screen) and you will get more performance for rendering OS X window. Yeeey.

4) One thunderbolt port -> one screen + nothing else. No thunderbolt docks, no splitters, no nothing.
rMBP: HDMI for external screen + two TB ports for 2GB/s combined external drive speed. You cannot do that with a cMBP...

5) Opinion, fact? Matte diffuses the light a little but it doesn't magically absorb it, sorry. One has a annoying reflection the other has an annoying glow under the same conditions.

6) No ****, the "body-weight" argument? Lugging your laptop + a few other things around on foot for 18 hours just isn't fun, shaving 20% of body weight off is nice...
Get a window laptop that will be heavier thicker and you will be able to install 4 drives in it... and no annoying display adapters for you, it will have a VGA port just for you - because; annoying adapters.

But I don't care really, it's not up for choice anyway. apple has effectively killed it by not giving it an upgrade.

 

[demosthenes80]

1) you can install 4 in a windows PC. It boils down to need.

3) Me neither. You having trouble with how computer systems work is another subject. You *can* run rMBP @1440*900 (and it will look just as good as the native screen) and you will get more performance for rendering OS X window. Yeeey.

4) One thunderbolt port -> one screen + nothing else. No thunderbolt docks, no splitters, no nothing.
rMBP: HDMI for external screen + two TB ports for 2GB/s combined external drive speed. You cannot do that with a cMBP...

5) Opinion, fact? Matte diffuses the light a little but it doesn't magically absorb it, sorry. One has a annoying reflection the other has an annoying glow under the same conditions.

6) No ****, the "body-weight" argument? Lugging your laptop + a few other things around on foot for 18 hours just isn't fun, shaving 20% of body weight off is nice...
Get a window laptop that will be heavier thicker and you will be able to install 4 drives in it... and no annoying display adapters for you, it will have a VGA port just for you - because; annoying adapters.

But I don't care really, it's not up for choice anyway. apple has effectively killed it by not giving it an upgrade.

1) The retina is barely thinner than the regular MBP, but sacrifices the extra space for an optional drive for minimal thinness. Seems silly to me.

3) Why on earth would I run a retina display at an effective 1440x900 when I could run it and a much more spacious 1920x1200?

4) Thunderbolt Display has a Thunderbolt port on it for other Thunderbolt stuff.

5) Look at the evidence.

6) That extra weight is made up by your precious adapters you need for your Thunderbolt ports.

 

[robvas]

4) Thunderbolt Display has a Thunderbolt port on it for other Thunderbolt stuff.

Other devices like some Thunderbolt HD enclosures don't have a daisy chain port, so that's all you can plug in.

 

[Ploki]

1) The retina is barely thinner than the regular MBP, but sacrifices the extra space for an optional drive for minimal thinness. Seems silly to me.

3) Why on earth would I run a retina display at an effective 1440x900 when I could run it and a much more spacious 1920x1200?

4) Thunderbolt Display has a Thunderbolt port on it for other Thunderbolt stuff.

5) Look at the evidence.

6) That extra weight is made up by your precious adapters you need for your Thunderbolt ports.

Barely thinner? It's not barely thinner, it's significantly thinner. Apple officially doesn't support a second drive, if they would, they could have made a better use from the cMBP chassis... plenty of space for a better GPU+cooling, more RAM slots AND another drive slot. Or two mSATA slots.

3) Well, duh... And it does look good @1920*1200... even non-HiDPI.

4) The single most expensive display on the planet... You can get two Dells with same panel for the same money. (Which you can't connect on the uMBP, and CAN on the retina...)

5) Call me blind but it seems to me it just depends whether you prefer reflection over glow. I don't care much about it though, I didn't on the older glossy which was FAR worse.

6) not really. I don't *need* ethernet on the go, nor do I need FW800 anywhere except it my studio... So that's where the adapters remain. And I don't need an adapter for HDMI because it's the standard - so I can connect mostly to wherever I wish.

Been on the fence for a while to be honest, and I do regret the option of *any* 2.5" drive, or two of them for that matter. That is the setup I had in my last uMBP.

I was impressed by the sound (it's quieter then my Mac Pro I used to have in the studio), RAM latency optimisation, and two TB ports available while driving an external screen via HDMI.

The retina screen, (although I do admit that it does look awesome) wasn't a deciding factor when I ordered it.

The retina as well could house a 2nd mSATA drive if they'd sacrifice one battery cell, which I wish they did.

I kinda hoped Apple would combine the ideas of rMBP as bleeding edge and cMBP into an awesome laptop. A tad thinner, retina screen optional cMBP with dual mSATA drive slots, swappable RAM, no optical drive and the same optimised thermals... That would be a great laptop. Would sell my retina in a split second if they made it.

 

[alphaod]

Get the Retina. If the glare is too bad, use a hood.

 

[demosthenes80]

Barely thinner? It's not barely thinner, it's significantly thinner. Apple officially doesn't support a second drive, if they would, they could have made a better use from the cMBP chassis... plenty of space for a better GPU+cooling, more RAM slots AND another drive slot. Or two mSATA slots.

3) Well, duh... And it does look good @1920*1200... even non-HiDPI.

4) The single most expensive display on the planet... You can get two Dells with same panel for the same money. (Which you can't connect on the uMBP, and CAN on the retina...)

5) Call me blind but it seems to me it just depends whether you prefer reflection over glow. I don't care much about it though, I didn't on the older glossy which was FAR worse.

6) not really. I don't *need* ethernet on the go, nor do I need FW800 anywhere except it my studio... So that's where the adapters remain. And I don't need an adapter for HDMI because it's the standard - so I can connect mostly to wherever I wish.

Been on the fence for a while to be honest, and I do regret the option of *any* 2.5" drive, or two of them for that matter. That is the setup I had in my last uMBP.

I was impressed by the sound (it's quieter then my Mac Pro I used to have in the studio), RAM latency optimisation, and two TB ports available while driving an external screen via HDMI.

The retina screen, (although I do admit that it does look awesome) wasn't a deciding factor when I ordered it.

The retina as well could house a 2nd mSATA drive if they'd sacrifice one battery cell, which I wish they did.

I kinda hoped Apple would combine the ideas of rMBP as bleeding edge and cMBP into an awesome laptop. A tad thinner, retina screen optional cMBP with dual mSATA drive slots, swappable RAM, no optical drive and the same optimised thermals... That would be a great laptop. Would sell my retina in a split second if they made it.

2) Yes, barely thinner. Sacrificing capability for that much thickness shaved off is ridiculous. Same goes for the new iMac.

3) Duh

4) Those Dells have FW800, Ethernet, USB and Thunderbolt ports do they? I have several Thunderbolt displays, and they are amazing. Just my opinion of course.

5) You're blind

6) YOU don't, but they killed a professional laptop (the 17" MBP) and tried to shove the retina down our throats with none of the ports we STILL USE (ala Ethernet and FW800...sorry, clients and the houses I freelance at are slow to upgrade to Thunderbolt). Andy freakin Ihnatko hates the retina for this very reason, and Alex Lindsay wishes he had a Retina MBP without the Retina because the wasted horsepower on pixels.


On your last point, I agree. Put a retina display in if you want, but leave the chassis as it is so those of us who need the additional ports, drives, etc can work with it if we need to. That's the single thing I hate about Apple, this whole "We know what you want even if you don't". I know what I want, and you're killing it.

 

[MacGekko]

Resurrecting an older thread I found from a google search. One of the things that brought me to Apple in 2008 for the first time was Windows Vista and the annoying glare from a Sony Vaio glossy screen. After using the Vaio for thirty minutes my eyes felt like they were burning.

Thankfully the 2008 Macbook Pro with matte screen was perfection but soon I'm going to have to get a new Macbook Pro, maxing out to 4gb Ram will help me get a couple more years but it is nearing the end, so now the question is for those that don't do well with non matte screens have you been able to swith to a Retina screen without any eye problems?

Thanks.

 

[yjchua95]

Ever heard of anti glare films? They exist and the more expensive ones are actually very nice. Get retina and an AG film. Be happy and get the est of both worlds.

Antiglare films ruin the colour gamut.

The antiglare cMBPs are as good as the glossy ones because the displays have been calibrated by Apple to achieve the same colour gamut as the glossy ones.

Edit: I have the retina as well, along with my 15" cMBP (2011) with antiglare screen. Sure, the retina is super, and glare is tolerable to most (but not to me. I still think it attracts flare like a solar panel).

That's why I still lug my cMBP around outdoors. I just hope Radeongate doesn't hit it.

 

[tmoerel]

Anti-Glare is a bad idea for photographers.

Any antiglare adds diffusion of light both incoming and outgoing. This will give color shifts and will decrease sharpness and perceived resolution.

As a photographer the best is a glossy screen used in an environment where you reduce the glare.

 

[howareyoukk]

Yo what's up

I can give you a straight answer of what you should get : ANTIGLARE
Why?
The Classic MacBook Pro ps don't only have the options to go with anti glare screen , it also retain the pro factors that the Rmbp should have. What are the pro factors if you ask me? Ethernet port, DVD rom and other ports. Oh don't forget that the Classic MacBook Pro can be upgraded by the users.

I was exactly at your position last year- deciding between retina or anti glare. I went with anti glare and did not regret a bit.

So get the antiglare.

 

[maflynn]

Anti-Glare is a bad idea for photographers.

Yet, I'd say the most vocal opponents of glossy screens are photographers, due in part because of the over saturation of colors.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but many professional photographers want to use or already have matte displays on their laptops.

 

[yjchua95]

Anti-Glare is a bad idea for photographers.

Any antiglare adds diffusion of light both incoming and outgoing. This will give color shifts and will decrease sharpness and perceived resolution.

As a photographer the best is a glossy screen used in an environment where you reduce the glare.

But when indoors, and under normal lighting, the antiglare screens are more natural and accurate in color. The glossy ones make colors look too contrasty and punchy.

 

[sbl]

Resurrecting an older thread I found from a google search. One of the things that brought me to Apple in 2008 for the first time was Windows Vista and the annoying glare from a Sony Vaio glossy screen. After using the Vaio for thirty minutes my eyes felt like they were burning.

Thankfully the 2008 Macbook Pro with matte screen was perfection but soon I'm going to have to get a new Macbook Pro, maxing out to 4gb Ram will help me get a couple more years but it is nearing the end, so now the question is for those that don't do well with non matte screens have you been able to swith to a Retina screen without any eye problems?

Thanks.

I use macbook over 8 hrs every day. I need to "read" (not browsing) lots of texts on the macbook. Glossy screen is a nightmare to my eyes.

I love apple's products but I hate the glossy screen. It hurt my eyes. I have used several MacBooks containing MBA2011, MBA2012 late, MBPR13, and CMBP15 matte. CMBP's matte display is the most comfortable screen for me. MBA2011 which came with anti-reflective coating is also ok. MBA2012late which came without AR and MBPR13 is the worst for my eye strain.

It is really a pity that there is no macbook with matte option now. I tried different pricy matte and anti-reflective films on on iPad (glossy) before. The result is far from the genuine matte/AR display.

 

[MacGekko]

I use macbook over 8 hrs every day. I need to "read" (not browsing) lots of texts on the macbook. Glossy screen is a nightmare to my eyes.

I love apple's products but I hate the glossy screen. It hurt my eyes. I have used several MacBooks containing MBA2011, MBA2012 late, MBPR13, and CMBP15 matte. CMBP's matte display is the most comfortable screen for me. MBA2011 which came with anti-reflective coating is also ok. MBA2012late which came without AR and MBPR13 is the worst for my eye strain.

It is really a pity that there is no macbook with matte option now. I tried different pricy matte and anti-reflective films on on iPad (glossy) before. The result is far from the genuine matte/AR display.

Thanks, I won't know until I can test it out but I have a feeling I will not like these new Macbook Pro's. I would like to hear more opinions on this subject but I wonder what some of the crazy options are, e.g. Buying a Matte Windows laptop and turning it into a Hackintosh but realistically I'm not that tech savvy to pull that off.

Now that I have been using OSX for years, I can't go back to Windows.

 

[bigeasy_uk]

I've had quite a few notebooks, mostly with anti-glare. I wouldn't give up my retina screen for the anti-glare now. The times the screen is affected by glare is more than made up for by the sharpness the majority of the time.