Users going from 17 MB Pro to 15 MB Pro Retina?

Baytriple

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 3, 2012
274
0
Have you changed from a 17 incher, High Resolution, Anti Glare screen to a 15 inch Retina?

I would like to hear as they have a nice shiny one in the shop next door waiting for me to buy but am not 100% sure I will enjoy the "looks like 1920 x 1200" screen.

The speed will be nice as my machine runs half of any new retina.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/935033
 

ljx718

macrumors 6502
Dec 13, 2008
428
2
Have you changed from a 17 incher, High Resolution, Anti Glare screen to a 15 inch Retina?

I would like to hear as they have a nice shiny one in the shop next door waiting for me to buy but am not 100% sure I will enjoy the "looks like 1920 x 1200" screen.

The speed will be nice as my machine runs half of any new retina.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/935033
i siwthced from a 17 in mbp and its really been great. the weight difference, i thought, wouldnt be that much , but it really is weird going to go pick up the rmbp and it feeling way lighter than i thought it would be.

the 1920 resolution - i can not tell a difference. maybe very very slight if youre right up to the screen, but at normal distance, theres no difference ( other than the better colors and contrast)

going from 17 to 15 in was a concern of mine at first, but i dont feel like im missing anything because of the 1920 resolution the rmpb can do.

overall i think it was a great change. works out better for me as well because i sold the 17 in and some old present and came out ahead by like $150.

i got the base this year, but next year im going to go all out.
 

Baytriple

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 3, 2012
274
0
Thanks for that. I may keep the 17 inch for showing my work (Im a graphic designer). I never usually sell my macs, just pass them down the family line some how.

So you think that you get used to the smaller size screen. That is my biggest concern . :)
 

ljx718

macrumors 6502
Dec 13, 2008
428
2
Thanks for that. I may keep the 17 inch for showing my work (Im a graphic designer). I never usually sell my macs, just pass them down the family line some how.

So you think that you get used to the smaller size screen. That is my biggest concern . :)
it wasnt even getting used to it. it was almost the same and i didnt skip a beat
 

GoreVidal

macrumors 6502a
Jun 19, 2011
597
0
Owned a 15" rMBP and switched back to my 17". Weight difference is no more than an extra bottle of water in my pack. Physical real-estate trumps pixel resolution from normal viewing distance. Speakers are superior. Don't have to deal with extra dongles or hard drives to compensate for lacking features in rMBP. And the antiglare 17" trumps the 15" "semiglossy" screen in terms of glare. Everyone is difference, but the rMBP doesn't cut it for me.
 

Baytriple

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 3, 2012
274
0
Owned a 15" rMBP and switched back to my 17". Weight difference is no more than an extra bottle of water in my pack. Physical real-estate trumps pixel resolution from normal viewing distance. Speakers are superior. Don't have to deal with extra dongles or hard drives to compensate for lacking features in rMBP. And the antiglare 17" trumps the 15" "semiglossy" screen in terms of glare. Everyone is difference, but the rMBP doesn't cut it for me.
Gahhh!! Thanks for the other side. These are the things that I may have issues with. It would be cheaper not to buy one but I do like shiny new machines that I would use everyday for work.

Hmm...
 

GoreVidal

macrumors 6502a
Jun 19, 2011
597
0
Gahhh!! Thanks for the other side. These are the things that I may have issues with. It would be cheaper not to buy one but I do like shiny new machines that I would use everyday for work.

Hmm...
The 17" is useful. The 15" rMBP is "pretty". My work has no room for "pretty", it requires utility. Until Apple either releases a new 17" model, or the 15" rMBP surpasses the last 17" in performance so greatly (it currently does not) that I would make more money by switching to it, I have no plans to do so.
 

AZREOSpecialist

macrumors 68020
Mar 15, 2009
2,115
925
Have you changed from a 17 incher, High Resolution, Anti Glare screen to a 15 inch Retina?

I would like to hear as they have a nice shiny one in the shop next door waiting for me to buy but am not 100% sure I will enjoy the "looks like 1920 x 1200" screen.

The speed will be nice as my machine runs half of any new retina.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/935033
I jumped to a RMBP from a late 2006 17" MBP. The upgrade has been absolutely amazing, not a single complaint. I don't miss the 17" screen at all. The 15" is the perfect size. However, I do not use the 1900x1200 scaled resolution as things are a bit small. I prefer the 1680x1050 resolution for the 15".

----------

The 17" is useful. The 15" rMBP is "pretty". My work has no room for "pretty", it requires utility. Until Apple either releases a new 17" model, or the 15" rMBP surpasses the last 17" in performance so greatly (it currently does not) that I would make more money by switching to it, I have no plans to do so.
If the 17" already serves your purpose, why on earth would you have bought a 15" Retina? All of the performance facts were known prior, so I don't see how that could have been a surprise to you. You also knew that it lacked certain ports and would require adaptors (not "dongles" - please learn the difference). So you returned your Retina because of things that you knew it had or didn't have before you bought it. I don't understand the logic here.

Let's also clarify that you are speaking strictly from your workflow and perspective. Many others, myself included, feel that the RMBP is far more useful than their previous MBPs. Different strokes for different folks. Also, 2 inches of additional screen area is a quibble. Those who really have a need for more screen "real estate" will be using a much larger external display anyway. 17" vs 15" is not, in any way, a deal breaker given the fact that you can view a full 1080p video on the RMBP and have plenty of room left over for your palettes, editing deck or anything else you need to keep on screen. This is a straw man argument, in my opinion.
 

hvgotcodes

macrumors member
Feb 2, 2011
98
3
At first, I thought the 1920x1200 setting on the retina was a bit too small; I had to get closer to the screen to read the words without straining. After a day or two, something must have happened, cause now I have no problems. I'm happy with the change.

If I could get a 17" retina I would; I can use the 15" with no problem, and with the significant processor speedup, I am more productive with this computer than with my 2 year old 17"
 

terraphantm

macrumors 68040
Jun 27, 2009
3,740
552
Pennsylvania
Owned a 15" rMBP and switched back to my 17". Weight difference is no more than an extra bottle of water in my pack. Physical real-estate trumps pixel resolution from normal viewing distance. Speakers are superior. Don't have to deal with extra dongles or hard drives to compensate for lacking features in rMBP. And the antiglare 17" trumps the 15" "semiglossy" screen in terms of glare. Everyone is difference, but the rMBP doesn't cut it for me.
Can you elaborate on why physical real estate trumps resolution? I hear this argument a lot, but still don't understand it
 

GoreVidal

macrumors 6502a
Jun 19, 2011
597
0
Can you elaborate on why physical real estate trumps resolution? I hear this argument a lot, but still don't understand it
Well, try using Final Cut Pro 7 or Adobe After Effects or Adobe Premiere for a week on a retina, then a week on a 17". It's a personal preference thing, but you have to experience it for yourself to feel the advantage. Something about my eyes looking at a larger display is more comfortable than higher density.

It's like if you have a 10 foot home theater screen at 1080p and a 55" HDTV at 1080p. Sure, the 55" is gonna be higher dpi, but that 10 foot screen is just nicer to look at.
 
Last edited:

hvgotcodes

macrumors member
Feb 2, 2011
98
3
Can you elaborate on why physical real estate trumps resolution? I hear this argument a lot, but still don't understand it
I think he is saying he likes 1920x1200 on a 17" display better than he does on a 15" display. 1920x1200 is 1920x1200, so both the 17 and the 15 will show the exact same amount of stuff on the screen, but since the 17" is 2" bigger, the stuff appears bigger, and hence might be more comfortable to view.
 

Roman2K~

macrumors 6502a
Mar 11, 2011
552
16
I think he is saying he likes 1920x1200 on a 17" display better than he does on a 15" display. 1920x1200 is 1920x1200, so both the 17 and the 15 will show the exact same amount of stuff on the screen, but since the 17" is 2" bigger, the stuff appears bigger, and hence might be more comfortable to view.
At 1920x1200, the 17" and retina 15" don't necessarily display the same "amount of stuff". On the Retina display, some apps can display videos and images pixel-for-pixel, leaving more room for other UI elements around them. I don't have an example as I don't own a rMBP yet, but I remember that they've demonstrated it during the keynote, and I think it's mentioned in this video.
 

Orlandoech

macrumors 68040
Jun 2, 2011
3,339
788
Salt Lake City, UT
Well, try using Final Cut Pro 7 or Adobe After Effects or Adobe Premiere for a week on a retina, then a week on a 17". It's a personal preference thing, but you have to experience it for yourself to feel the advantage. Something about my eyes looking at a larger display is more comfortable than higher density.

It's like if you have a 10 foot home theater screen at 1080p and a 55" HDTV at 1080p. Sure, the 55" is gonna be higher dpi, but that 10 foot screen is just nicer to look at.
Yea because 10' and 55" is the same as a two inch difference between 15" and 17" lcd.
 

hvgotcodes

macrumors member
Feb 2, 2011
98
3
At 1920x1200, the 17" and retina 15" don't necessarily display the same "amount of stuff". On the Retina display, some apps can display videos and images pixel-for-pixel, leaving more room for other UI elements around them. I don't have an example as I don't own a rMBP yet, but I remember that they've demonstrated it during the keynote, and I think it's mentioned in this video.
Yeah I think you are right, since on the retina everything is scaled to 1920x1200, but is actually on the native resolution. I think images display pixel for pixel, i.e. no scaling.
 

terraphantm

macrumors 68040
Jun 27, 2009
3,740
552
Pennsylvania
Well, try using Final Cut Pro 7 or Adobe After Effects or Adobe Premiere for a week on a retina, then a week on a 17". It's a personal preference thing, but you have to experience it for yourself to feel the advantage. Something about my eyes looking at a larger display is more comfortable than higher density.

It's like if you have a 10 foot home theater screen at 1080p and a 55" HDTV at 1080p. Sure, the 55" is gonna be higher dpi, but that 10 foot screen is just nicer to look at.
It's more like a 58" vs a 65" proportionally. All else being equal, I'd go with the larger display in the case of a TV. But if the smaller display had a much higher quality panel, I'd go with that.

And I don't know, I moved from using a 24" desktop monitor almost exclusively to the retina display. I don't find myself really missing the size.
 

gentlefury

macrumors 68030
Jul 21, 2011
2,848
0
Los Angeles, CA
i siwthced from a 17 in mbp and its really been great. the weight difference, i thought, wouldnt be that much , but it really is weird going to go pick up the rmbp and it feeling way lighter than i thought it would be.

the 1920 resolution - i can not tell a difference. maybe very very slight if youre right up to the screen, but at normal distance, theres no difference ( other than the better colors and contrast)

going from 17 to 15 in was a concern of mine at first, but i dont feel like im missing anything because of the 1920 resolution the rmpb can do.

overall i think it was a great change. works out better for me as well because i sold the 17 in and some old present and came out ahead by like $150.

i got the base this year, but next year im going to go all out.
rMBP is 2880x1800 resolution, (3840x2400 in "looks like 1920 mode")
 

GoreVidal

macrumors 6502a
Jun 19, 2011
597
0
It's more like a 58" vs a 65" proportionally. All else being equal, I'd go with the larger display in the case of a TV. But if the smaller display had a much higher quality panel, I'd go with that.

And I don't know, I moved from using a 24" desktop monitor almost exclusively to the retina display. I don't find myself really missing the size.
Like I said, personal preference. But if I'm in the field editing footage for 12 hours a day, I'm taking the largest display I can get.
 

poppe

macrumors 68020
Apr 29, 2006
2,199
32
Woodland Hills
17" Late 2006 now with 15" rMBP.

Only thing I miss is the real estate of the 17". I can definitely tell on certain uses when I used to be able to see more on my screen then now. Love my rMBP and when I need that extra real estate I switch it to the more resolution setting and that works for now.
 

stiwi

macrumors regular
Nov 13, 2010
227
9
Singapore
I am also considering switching from MBP 17" to rMBP 15" (2.6, 16GB). My concern is not 1920x1200 running on 15" as I should be comfortable with that. My concern is if I am going to have any performance issues running rMBP at this non native 1920x1200 scaled resolution.
 

hvgotcodes

macrumors member
Feb 2, 2011
98
3
I am also considering switching from MBP 17" to rMBP 15" (2.6, 16GB). My concern is not 1920x1200 running on 15" as I should be comfortable with that. My concern is if I am going to have any performance issues running rMBP at this non native 1920x1200 scaled resolution.
I was worried about that; I don't think its a major concern. You can always return within 14 days. I am very happy with my 17"; I had a few minor gripes but nothing major.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1424029