If that is the case, than wouldn't a Mac be better since you can run Windows on it? I mean it's all preference but once you go Mac it's hard to go anywhere else... the learning curve from Windows from Mac was pretty steep.
Well that's what I do, I buy Apple laptops and Bootcamp dual boot OS X/Windows. Apple clearly makes the best hardware around, and I like OS X for most of my normal day to day operations, but I also need Windows because I do software work for Windows.
The thing is I don't actually need OS X from a work perspective; Nothing I do actually requires it. I've used Windows since 3.1 and am extremely familiar with it (my desktop builds are always Windows simply because that's where I do my gaming and actual testing of software projects).
My point is that if a particularly impressive alternative came along I can drop OS X without it hurting my work flow, but it's never going to happen when the only decent alternatives insist on using 16:9 screens because they believe most users just want to watch videos and play games.
Not to mention the fact that this particular example only has one thing the rMBP doesn't, which is the touch screen. The price is more or less the same when you actually add all the upgrades required to make the machines equivalent.
Hey that's kind of an ignorant statement, Walrus. What about the millions of people who make a living rendering images of wiener dogs in Illustrator? Or people who want to look at full-resolution pics of bananas or cucumbers???
It was insensitive, I apologize. Someone has to produce those ads that go on the sides of trains and do the text formatting for airplane banners.
To be serious, I'm sure there are valid working cases for wider screens. Media editing software which uses long horizontal tracks comes to mind. It's just that this is such a specialized case that it's hard for me to believe that most laptop work is better with 16:9 and I'm just some old-fashioned hold out.
