Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What does "Pro" mean?
- Thread starter stagmeister
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pro means being able to switch from disparate task to disparate task and mostly not being hindered by your hardware, provided you purchased the upgrade that matches the max task.
A mid-level dGPU fits the description of mostly not being hindered. And the qualifier of "provided you purchased the upgrade that matches the max task" means that you are not expecting > 4 core xeon performance from a C2D.
With the loss of the dGPU, I feel that will no longer be the case for the MBP, IMHO.
A mid-level dGPU fits the description of mostly not being hindered. And the qualifier of "provided you purchased the upgrade that matches the max task" means that you are not expecting > 4 core xeon performance from a C2D.
With the loss of the dGPU, I feel that will no longer be the case for the MBP, IMHO.
Two people use my G5 Quad for video editing, and I use it to make funny apple photoshops like this one:
because the PowerMac G5 was the best computer apple has ever made, and truly could be used professionally, unlike todays "Pro" macs, which are worthless. I might be getting 64GB of ram, as long as I can get it under 4000$, because I need to use the G5 as long as I can and stay away from the evil intell macs.
because the PowerMac G5 was the best computer apple has ever made, and truly could be used professionally, unlike todays "Pro" macs, which are worthless. I might be getting 64GB of ram, as long as I can get it under 4000$, because I need to use the G5 as long as I can and stay away from the evil intell macs.
It's really not the "pros" wanting user-upgradability. But the thing is, business really don't upgrade computers every 3 years. So having a computer that will be able to run faster, and keep up with the current tech even 5 years from purchase is really important. Even if they have to pay someone to upgrade it (and how hard is that?!). Most "pros" dont give a dang about upgrading themselves, just that the computers CAN be upgraded.
As for the retina 15" being better than the 17", you obviously have never used both. Resolution honestly means next to nothing. Just because the 15" has the same amount of pixels in a standard 30" screen doesn't make the screen magically better. It's still 15 inches. The pixels just make everything smaller and more detailed. In the 17" there is 2 more inches of actual, physical screen real estate. Resolution means nothing. If you had a high PPI 10 inch HD panel, you would still prefer a larger 20" display, right?
----------
This.
Pro means being able to have nearly top of the line specs 7-10 years after the computer was made.
64gb of RAM in any desktop today is killer. In a 10 year old Mac, that's just beast.
Last edited:
I really like what you're posting.
I really, really enjoyed reading your insight and affirmations of how I also feel.
Thank you !!!
I really, really enjoyed reading your insight and affirmations of how I also feel.
Thank you !!!
No, actually I would prefer a smaller screen with a higher PPI, same resolution as a larger screen. Just look at the 27" iMac or ACD/TBD compared to the previous generation 30" ACD. I'll pick the 27" over the 30" any day because it's a shaper image with the same exact screen real estate for OS X.
The 15" rMBP is scalable to 1980 x 1200, just the same as a 17" MBP. Like I said, no reason to keep the 17" when you get the same resolution on the 15". The extra 2" just enlarges everything a little, lowers the PPI, but ultimately doesn't add any screen estate. So again, in this case, I'll gladly take a 15" rMBP over a 17".
As for your 10" vs 20". Do you really have to blow things out of proportion? No, obviously I would not go for the 10". I'm more interested in marginal differences, i.e: 27" vs 30" / 15" vs 17".
So if the 17" had a retina display would you say the same thing?
Say a new 17" came out with the exact same resolution as the 15", would you still get a 15" if you wanted a larger screen? According to your logic the 15" has the *same* screen as the 17".
Scaling means nothing. Having the ability to scale to the same pixel count does not get you more screen. It gets you more pixels.
The rMBP has 4 times as many pixels as the standard 15" macbook pro, but people do not see more pixels (generally). We see screen real estate. The only way you would be able to "see" more real estate is getting physically closer to your laptop. So unless you have your computer right smack up against your face, its still a 15".
Same with the 17". People keep saying "lol, dude, just get a 15" retina macbook pro. It has the same pixels!". Great! It has the same pixels! But a 15" will be a 15" always, not a 17". No changing it.
TBH I'm really sorry about blowing things up out of proportion. I'm not too great at explaining some of this stuff. Sometimes you just have to experience it yourself. Trust me, its different
If I wanted a larger screen. Don't you see this is all very subjective? What you're asking all really boils down to user preference. Do you want a sharper screen at the expense of smaller sized elements, or do you want your text and graphics slightly larger at the expense of less refined sharpness?
But if your curious, aside from being smaller and lighter, which is what I personally prefer, I would still get the 15" because of it's higher PPI. Once again, I point at the 27" iMac/ACD/TBD vs 30" ACD comparison from my previous post, which is what you're trying to mirror here.
According to my logic, 1980 x 1200 = 1980 x 1200. Simple objective math.
What?
Yes it does. Of course you get more screen. By scaling resolutions, you'll be able to fit more content and information on the screen than you did before, just at a smaller ratio.Resolution does matter because that's the core of my argument: the 15 rMBP is scalable to the same exact resolution of the 17". 1980 x 1200 = 1980 x 1200. Period. If you were to load up the same exact Pages document or Safari webpage on both a 15" rMBP scaled at 1980 x 1200 vs a 17" at native resolution, you would get word for word, from beginning to end, the same exact amount of content on each display. One will look tinier, albeit sharper (15"), but the other will look larger, albeit less sharp (17").
It shouldn't be any more complicated than this.
Yes, but you can fit the same exact amount of information on a 15" vs a 17" with the same identical resolutions. I feel like I'm constantly repeating myself on this point now...
TBH I'm really sorry about blowing things up out of proportion. I'm not too great at explaining some of this stuff. Sometimes you just have to experience it yourself. Trust me, its different
That's quite ok. This is a pretty civil conversation versus the stuff you read on front page news articles. I really can't stand it
Pretty much my point... It looks larger on the 17" because it physically takes up more space (less ppi), but you can't mimic the same ppi on a 15". You can mimic the resolution at a higher ppi, but it compresses the information into a smaller space. Try to mimic the ppi and it would show less content on the screen. I don't know of this makes sense to you but it did to me (kind of...
). Anyways, having the same amount of information displayed in a smaller space makes it more difficult to make out the content. So spreading that out over a larger space (=less ppi) makes it easier for the human eye to discern. So I'm not saying the 17" is better, it just has a more physical estate and a less ppi. You can fit lots more content on a 15" rMBP, but it is harder to see. Lol I feel so ramble-y right now It's like comparing cars specs. On paper, one car should totally beat another, but in real life the outcome is sometimes different. I think this is one of those things that needs to be experienced. Plus, you have your opinion, I have mine. Hope this explained my opinion more, albeit in a long, rambling way.
Anyways, having the same amount of information displayed in a smaller space makes it more difficult to make out the content. So spreading that out over a larger space (=less ppi) makes it easier for the human eye to discern. So I'm not saying the 17" is better, it just has a more physical estate and a less ppi. You can fit lots more content on a 15" rMBP, but it is harder to see. Lol I feel so ramble-y right now
It's like comparing cars specs. On paper, one car should totally beat another, but in real life the outcome is sometimes different. I think this is one of those things that needs to be experienced. Plus, you have your opinion, I have mine. Hope this explained my opinion more, albeit in a long, rambling way.
I think we're on the same page and always have been lol. We were just looking at the same thing at two different angles. Of course I can definitely see people appreciating larger sized text and graphics for sure and to that extent, I can see why the 17" MBP has it's audience. I'm also not disagreeing with you that it may be more difficult to view the same amount of content on a 15" rMBP for some people. What remains constant here, is that the amount of displayable information can be matched between both machines.
Maybe when retina displays have gone down drastically in price, perhaps Apple will one day bring back the 17" with retina, because right now I think a retina display at that size would be a daunting challenge for Apple and a very expensive proposition for the customer. Also, if and when the the Macbook Airs finally get the retina treatment as well, I really can't see the business strategy of keeping both the 13" Air and the 13" rMBP selling together. I think it would be a nice clean product lineup to just have the 11" and 13" for the Airs only, and the 15" and 17" reserved for the "Pro" moniker. But just my opinion.
Last edited:
Haha I just re-read what I wrote there and I'm as confused as you are..What?
I think I was trying to explain PPI difference and had temporarily forgotten what PPI means... Yeah I get your pointI think we're on the same page and always have been lol. We were just looking at the same thing at two different angles. Of course I can definitely see people appreciating larger sized text and graphics for sure and to that extent, I can see why the 17" MBP has it's audience. I'm also not disagreeing with you that it may be more difficult to view the same amount of content on a 15" rMBP for some people. What remains constant here, is that the amount of displayable information can be matched between both machines.
Maybe when retina displays have gone down drastically in price, perhaps Apple will one day bring back the 17" with retina, because right now I think a retina display at that size would be a daunting challenge for Apple and a very expensive proposition for the customer. Also, if and when the the Macbook Airs finally get the retina treatment as well, I really can't see the business strategy of keeping both the 13" Air and the 13" rMBP selling together. I think it would be a nice clean product lineup to just have the 11" and 13" for the Airs only, and the 15" and 17" reserved for the "Pro" moniker. But just my opinion.
I definitely see why people go for the retina display (duh. PIXALZ!), and what you can do with it but if you use the full resolution stuff gets tiny (I'm laughing at myself for this because it sounds like I need glasses to see small stuff on the screen but I don't). But the resolution for the 17" compared to the 15" was a pretty decent upgrade, before we got retina. Now if apple could pull a nice 17" 4k display out of their sleeve, for a decent price... that would be awesome. I understand also the appreciation of the retina 15", people need resolution... Maybe I'm more angry that apple didn't get a retina 17" It would've been killer with a 4k displayAs for the Airs vs the Pros, I don't know what apple is going to do... unless they can pull the same performance/battery from an air (with retina) as a 13" rMBP they will still sell both, but once they achieve that they will probably cancel the 13" MBP. Which would leave the 15" retina all alone in the pro line (unless the 17" came back!!!!)...
TBH I hate internet arguing. I mean, seriously, how many peoples opinions/beliefs are actually changed due to some random guys comments? Maybe 1%? Nice to see someone who doesn't blow up at other people at the slightest sign of an argument!
Shall we agree to agree?Its cool too because I've made this argument for a while now, I just didn't understand the other side of it very well until now. Thanks for the perspective!
The 1000th thread on this.
It's a marketing term. They have the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro.
If upgrading RAM is an issue then get 16GB. SSD is user replaceable. There's nothing that isn't user replaceable with the RMBP that is user replaceable with any other laptop besides the RAM, and it isn't that expensive of an upgrade if you're already paying of $2,000 for the laptop.
It's a marketing term. They have the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro.
If upgrading RAM is an issue then get 16GB. SSD is user replaceable. There's nothing that isn't user replaceable with the RMBP that is user replaceable with any other laptop besides the RAM, and it isn't that expensive of an upgrade if you're already paying of $2,000 for the laptop.
Of course. However, in the context of the Macbook it's just a marketing term that doesn't mean anything. It just delineates one product line from another.
Be careful with broad generalizations. 3 years is exactly our hardware refresh cycle.
Lol, that should read "most companies". Broad generalizations always bite you in the behind (another broad generalization)...
I think you have it reversed. 3 years is a typical full computer depreciation term.
it means you turn it on, it does what it's supposed to do, and will run full speed if need be for a week at a time and not break.. a tool that instills confidence.. and last a long time (well, short time when comparing to other pro tools but 6-7 years is pretty long in computerland.. it's usually the software which stops working before the computer dies)
and while i'm sure there are some hiccups in that program, i personally have been granted those qualities in all of my apple pro purchases (assuming the powerbookG4 and powermacG5 are also considered pro hardware)
----------
nah.. 3 years is about the time it takes many users to start itching for latest&greatest.. the computer doesn't feel the same way though and will/should keep doing what it's supposed to do.
and while i'm sure there are some hiccups in that program, i personally have been granted those qualities in all of my apple pro purchases (assuming the powerbookG4 and powermacG5 are also considered pro hardware)
----------
nah.. 3 years is about the time it takes many users to start itching for latest&greatest.. the computer doesn't feel the same way though and will/should keep doing what it's supposed to do.