Review: Apple's 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 32
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member


    The reason the 13 inch has been such a big seller is because it was the cheapest model.  This machine is severely overpriced and thus very poor value and lacks the main selling feature of the 13' pro - price.


     


    I was dithering a while back, over waiting for this machine or getting the 15" MBPR.  I decided to get the MBPR, and am now very glad I did.  I can see the value in the 15", but not the 13".


     


    What decided me on the 15" is that the front to back depth was only 7mm more than my 13" unibody it was replacing and the weight was almost identical.  The depth being almost the same allowed me to get it into the backpack I use as carry-on when flying.  Even though the weight is the same, the 15" actually feels lighter because the weight is distributed over a larger area.

     

  • Reply 22 of 32
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by shitness View Post


    what about the IMAGE RETENTION PROBLEM?


    https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4034848?start=0&tstart=0


     


    nobody seems to care about it.





    That will depend on whether Samsung is making the screens or Sharp/LG.  Hopefully it will be Samsung, unless Sharp/LG were able to solve the problem in the meantime.

  • Reply 23 of 32
    quambquamb Posts: 143member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by v5v View Post


     


    On a machine with HD4000 graphics? That seems pretty optimistic...



    I've been using a four year old macbook for intensive Final Cut and Logic work - it's held up absolutely fine. You actually don't need that much of a beast to do video work. 

  • Reply 24 of 32
    vikptvikpt Posts: 14member


    It does on my 13 inch non-retina 2011 so I'm wondering if it does as well on this machine

     

  • Reply 25 of 32
    vikptvikpt Posts: 14member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by v5v View Post


     


    On a machine with HD4000 graphics? That seems pretty optimistic...





    It does on my 13 inch non-retina 2011 so I'm wondering if it does as well on this machine

  • Reply 26 of 32
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by quamb View Post


    I've been using a four year old macbook for intensive Final Cut and Logic work - it's held up absolutely fine. You actually don't need that much of a beast to do video work. 



     


    You must be working with reasonably bandwidth-limited source files, yes? Even the 2009 Mac Pro tower I use for audio post, which has whatever was the top-of-the-line CPU and graphics card at that time, barfs and hiccups trying to play only-lightly-compressed 4:2:2 HD video (like the Apple Animation codec).


     


    He also mentioned After Effects, which I wouldn't want to use with integrated graphics. Though I suppose if he has lots of free time, maybe it doesn't matter.

  • Reply 27 of 32
    ecsecs Posts: 307member


    Using the "Pro" tag for a machine with HD-4000 gfx is a bit nonsense.


     


    The laptop line needs a more reasonable naming, such as:


     


    if ( ItCanBeUsedForPhotoshop() && ItCanBeUsedForMaya() && ItCanPlayLastGenerationGames() )


       CallItPro();


    else


       DontCallItPro();

  • Reply 28 of 32
    Did anyone test the performance while attached to a HDTV (through HDMI) and a 24" display (Thunderbolt)? Without a dedicated GPU the two Thunderbolts and the HDMI seem a bit optimistic.
  • Reply 29 of 32
    gustavgustav Posts: 823member
    IMHO, if you need more than the stock 8/128 config, and portability doesn't rank high, it's better to get the 15" Retina MBP.
  • Reply 30 of 32
    I disagree that there isn't noticeable sluggishness with the Intel integrated graphics pushing that many pixels. When scrolling mail messages containing high resolution photos on Apple's demo machines I saw choppiness on both the 13" and 15" models with the "pull" effect when you scroll above the top of the message.

    At least with the 15" model there's an option to turn off the integrated graphics which would no doubt make it fluid and smooth.

    As the review points out, Apple are taking consumers for a ride with their pricing of the 13" model. It is either very close or sometimes even the same price as the much better 15" model with custom configuration. Apple obviously recognise that it's their most popular model and that there's a lot of people who think the 15" is too big, even though the 15" retina is now virtually the same weight as the former 13". Apple's margins are obviously much higher on the 13".

    I'd say the 13" retina is a poor buy and you'd only want it if you absolutely need a retina display in a laptop with the smallest possible form-factor.
  • Reply 31 of 32
    I dare say the 13" MacBook Pro with Retina Display won't be Apple's best selling retina model!
  • Reply 32 of 32


    That probably has OS X 10.8.1. Try downloading OS X 10.8.2 there's a seriously noticeable change with lag/sluggish performance (which I didnt' experience on the former OS X but some say they did)

Sign In or Register to comment.