Why 10 days?![]()
Because a friend is coming from US and here the 13" retina ME662LL is ~$2400 and I decided that it's a sign and I must stop waiting for new model and be happy with the current model
Why 10 days?![]()
Have you tested that? I doubt most people could see a difference. Given the current cost of 13" and 15" Retina displays, I would not want Apple to make that switch anytime soon. It would be better to continue production of the current already awesome Retina displays and drive the costs down.
Jesus!
rMBP has the highest resolution in the market and you want more?
Let's hope for a quick update and a slight price cut instead.
And, as for the 13", I'm happy with 1200x800. Letters are too small with the MBA resolution.
In the current case, I expect immediate availability with supply more or less keeping up with demand.A few questions for those with prior experience of MBP launches...
Are they hard to get hold of on launch day or soon after launch day (as is currently the case with the iPhone 5s?)
Is there usually a delay between announcement and availability?
I very much hope for a silent update in 3 days. There seems to be very little chance for the Haswell MBP update to be substantially different from that of the MBA and iMac. The one plausible exception would be Thunderbolt 2 and even that looks unlikely.Here's to hoping that there won't be a silent refresh in 3 days..
..or 10 days..
..or a "by the way" mention in 17 days..
There must be more to the Haswell rMBP than to the Airs and iMacs!
Here's to hoping that there won't be a silent refresh in 3 days..
..or 10 days..
..or a "by the way" mention in 17 days..
There must be more to the Haswell rMBP than to the Airs and iMacs!
I disagree. The working area is too small. It needs to have an effective working area of at-least 1680x1050 minimum and I'd prefer 1920x1200. Other manufacturers have been shipping 1080p panels in their 15" notebooks for literally 4-5 years. Apple whilst shipping a 2880x1800 panel is only giving us an effective working area of 1440x900 which is the correct resolution for a 13" notebook in my opinion.
To say the current setup is perfect is plainly ridiculous, it can always be improved I'd say the current setup is good not perfect and if it was 4K then it'd be great but still not perfection, there is always more ways to improve the notebook and perfect would convey it's already topped out.
Taking into account that the display has such a high resolution for the screen size, to my eyes, it is pretty close to perfect. Obviously other aspects of the machine can be improved, but the display will be very difficult to top (at least in the next couple of years). I'd prefer it if Apple focused on performance rather than another bump in resolution.
Exactly. While a 4K res may bring Apple another tagline ("World's first 4K computer"), it's overkill right now, just as 1080p is overkill on a 5 inch phone.
Ars Technica has posted some Iris Pro benchmarks on the iMac:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/09/new-cpus-faster-wi-fi-same-flaws-apples-2013-imac-reviewed/2/
I want to know, how does iris 5100 fit into this !!?
And more benchmarks
Somewhere between the 5000 and the 5200.
This isn't true of the low-end iMac that we're reviewing, which is actually a bit more interesting than its more powerful cousins: it uses Intel's integrated Iris Pro 5200 GPU, which makes it the first iMac to use integrated graphics since the low-end 2009 iMac and the first iMac ever to use one of Intel's integrated graphics.
Another question:
What do we expect in terms of the pricing of the new models? The same as the current gen, or have the prices of new MacBook Pros been gradually increasing with each launch like the iPhones?
An off topic comment on the Ars Technica article, which mentions:
There was a time where the 2006 iMac had a ****** GMA 950 model, so this isn't the first time we're seeing intel integrated in an iMac.