TechSpot: Apple MacBook Pro with Retina Display Review

Apple’s coveted Retina display has finally found its way to a full-size notebook courtesy of the latest MacBook Pro. But anyone familiar with this new system knows that Apple didn’t simply add a higher resolution display to the standard MacBook Pro frame. Instead, there’s an entirely reworked chassis that’s nearly as thin as the MacBook Air and weighs more than a pound less than the standard Pro.

Customers can also configure a Retina system with up to 16GB of RAM and 768GB of flash storage, versus a maximum of 8GB of RAM and 512GB of solid state storage on a standard Pro. But hey, who are we kidding, the only reason that most people are going to dish over the extra cash for Apple’s latest and greatest is the 2880 x 1800 resolution goodness of the Retina display. And I’ll go ahead and let you in a little secret: it’s a thing of beauty.

If you didn’t know that this was the Retina display system, one look at the display even with the power off would point you in the right direction. For one, there is no traditional bezel surrounding the screen. It looks similar to say, the Infinity display found on the HP Envy 14 but the key difference visually is that the actual panel is just as dark black as the “bezel” around it.

Read: Apple MacBook Pro with Retina Display Review

These articles are brought to you in partnership with TechSpot.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Android is getting ready for multiple user switching

Next Story

Wikipad gaming tablet specs revealed

49 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Coveted?? Uggg these apple zombies must have their head up their hiney Coveted, Ohhh excuse me thats the new carrot dangled over the masses heads ...

I wonder if they have any on display at Best Buy. When it came to retina display on iPhone and iPad, I drooled. Pre-retina the displays on iOS devices were eye sores. You could count the pixels if you wanted to.

I never really felt that way about my 1440x900 15" MBP. I can't really see any of the pixels where I hold it. I'm sure that the retina display looks better, but I think that we may be in the area of diminishing returns for non-graphics (not a photographer nor do I edit movies) oriented users like me.

Got to be said I've got one and though it's very nice and I bought it hope the screen would be ace. It is ace, however it's just not 'right' that huge res in such a small space is a pain. Yes you can use the OS X settings to 'scale' it but then you don't get the full resoultion. Anyway, use one for a week and you'll see what I mean.

The rest of the machine, no optical drive, USB 3, SSD as standard, the size and build quality make it great. A really great laptop.

SK[ said,]No Ethernet? Odd decision.

It's too thin to house that port. They have an adapter you can plug in that costs so little it's no big deal. 90% of people are using Wifi these days and it's 5ghz N so it's no slouch and faster than pretty much anyone's internet connection. Since only a small number of people care about ethernet anymore (I use ethernet via my Thunderbolt display) it makes sense. The device being that thin and light far outweighs the importance of a built in ethernet. They made this decision long ago with the MBA.

Spirit Dave said,

It's too thin to house that port. They have an adapter you can plug in that costs so little it's no big deal. 90% of people are using Wifi these days and it's 5ghz N so it's no slouch and faster than pretty much anyone's internet connection. Since only a small number of people care about ethernet anymore (I use ethernet via my Thunderbolt display) it makes sense. The device being that thin and light far outweighs the importance of a built in ethernet. They made this decision long ago with the MBA.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I loved the comment about how 90% of people use WiFi. That has to be the most preposterous statement I have read for a while. Yes most home people who use an excessive amount of iProducts use WiFi most of the time but real men use Ethernet, at work at least. Taking out the ethernet port and making you use a frigging adaptor just blew any chance that a productive man would consider buying it!

Spirit Dave said,
... no slouch and faster than pretty much anyone's internet connection...

Is it faster than fiber-optic one?

ingramator said,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I loved the comment about how 90% of people use WiFi. That has to be the most preposterous statement I have read for a while. Yes most home people who use an excessive amount of iProducts use WiFi most of the time but real men use Ethernet, at work at least. Taking out the ethernet port and making you use a frigging adaptor just blew any chance that a productive man would consider buying it!

I disagree. And so do all the people who have been buying them. Huge numbers ... the entire design department where I work has all been bought 2.6ghz models of the Retina machine. But then, we all have Thunderbolt screens too.

Wifi is becoming a standard and Ethernet isn't as important. You can't possibly think a company or individual buying one for business/design/development use that needs Ethernet is going to hold off buying an adapter after laying down the money for one of these? No one would. And you can't possibly have the machine that slim WITH ethernet. What would you rather? Personally, the weight and size make a massive difference. Laptops are portable. Most portable systems aren't hooked up to Ethernet. Most are using Wifi. Sure, on a desktop, Ethernet is important because it's being sat in one place permanently, but if you honestly believe Ethernet is that important on a device that's designed to be picked up and moved around constantly, you're utterly wrong. That's just a fact. Apple aren't dumb. If you think they are, you should take a look at their sales figures... sales figures on devices that Neowin people would all complain about being 'limited'. The general public, and now very much so, the business sector doesn't seem to agree with you guys.

ingramator said,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I loved the comment about how 90% of people use WiFi. That has to be the most preposterous statement I have read for a while. Yes most home people who use an excessive amount of iProducts use WiFi most of the time but real men use Ethernet, at work at least. Taking out the ethernet port and making you use a frigging adaptor just blew any chance that a productive man would consider buying it!

Wow, wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Whats with being so over-the-top dramatic over an ethernet port that "real men" use? Look, anyone with half-a-brain knows that if you REALLY are concerned about having an ethernet hook-up you will already be carrying around an ethernet patch cable because it isn't like stray-ethernet ports just have wires hanging off them. Just put the stupid adapter on the cable YOU ALREADY carry around, and be done with it.

If you need ethernet at home and at the office, there is an adapter. Stop being a drama queen. We're talking about connectors that increase the size of your (manhood?) connection by very small margins over WiFi N.

Spirit Dave said,

I disagree. And so do all the people who have been buying them. Huge numbers ... the entire design department where I work has all been bought 2.6ghz models of the Retina machine. But then, we all have Thunderbolt screens too.

Wifi is becoming a standard and Ethernet isn't as important. You can't possibly think a company or individual buying one for business/design/development use that needs Ethernet is going to hold off buying an adapter after laying down the money for one of these? No one would. And you can't possibly have the machine that slim WITH ethernet. What would you rather? Personally, the weight and size make a massive difference. Laptops are portable. Most portable systems aren't hooked up to Ethernet. Most are using Wifi. Sure, on a desktop, Ethernet is important because it's being sat in one place permanently, but if you honestly believe Ethernet is that important on a device that's designed to be picked up and moved around constantly, you're utterly wrong. That's just a fact. Apple aren't dumb. If you think they are, you should take a look at their sales figures... sales figures on devices that Neowin people would all complain about being 'limited'. The general public, and now very much so, the business sector doesn't seem to agree with you guys.

OK, I guess I was a bit harsh on you. You work in a "graphic design" joint right? WiFi is not becoming a standard ( I think you mean the standard it already has standards ) anywhere else mate. When your sharing business data be it financial (in my case) or other sensitive stuff you'll find there is no WiFi and if there is its for personal use and nothing more. People like you (not having a go at you, although it may seem like it ) think that the consumer space is where its at because I guess thats all you really see but in reality most of the computers in this world are in enterprises, governments and SMBs. I know at my place where over 10K people work every single computer be it laptop, desktop or server is connected via cat6 or 5e Ethernet. There would be at least 30K Ethernet connected devices throughout out 3 buildings and there would be maybe 10 connected to the "personal wifi" so johnny and the rest of the nooby managers can use their iPad.

ATM Ethernets going nowhere. WiFi is by no means secure- At all. It can't deliver high speeds to multiple clients and it has a higher failure rate with packet transmission. So yeah I'd say the execs who decided to compromise functionality for beauty had some pretty firey meetings over what was to happen and I guess they realised that their user base were mostly the average house hold consumer which used WiFi at home to check his FB page constantly.

Anyways you definely have some good arguments and I guess it all boiled down to Apple's target demographic. Have a nice day! (or Night)

ingramator said,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I loved the comment about how 90% of people use WiFi. That has to be the most preposterous statement I have read for a while. Yes most home people who use an excessive amount of iProducts use WiFi most of the time but real men use Ethernet, at work at least. Taking out the ethernet port and making you use a frigging adaptor just blew any chance that a productive man would consider buying it!


The comments "but real men use Ethernet" and "Taking out the ethernet port and making you use a frigging adaptor just blew any chance that a productive man would consider buying it" are so incredibly stereotypical, and sound like they're coming from a very insecure, and envious individual, whose only method of expressing themselves is thru trolling.

ingramator said,

OK, I guess I was a bit harsh on you. You work in a "graphic design" joint right? WiFi is not becoming a standard ( I think you mean the standard it already has standards ) anywhere else mate. When your sharing business data be it financial (in my case) or other sensitive stuff you'll find there is no WiFi and if there is its for personal use and nothing more. People like you (not having a go at you, although it may seem like it ) think that the consumer space is where its at because I guess thats all you really see but in reality most of the computers in this world are in enterprises, governments and SMBs. I know at my place where over 10K people work every single computer be it laptop, desktop or server is connected via cat6 or 5e Ethernet. There would be at least 30K Ethernet connected devices throughout out 3 buildings and there would be maybe 10 connected to the "personal wifi" so johnny and the rest of the nooby managers can use their iPad.

ATM Ethernets going nowhere. WiFi is by no means secure- At all. It can't deliver high speeds to multiple clients and it has a higher failure rate with packet transmission. So yeah I'd say the execs who decided to compromise functionality for beauty had some pretty firey meetings over what was to happen and I guess they realised that their user base were mostly the average house hold consumer which used WiFi at home to check his FB page constantly.

Anyways you definely have some good arguments and I guess it all boiled down to Apple's target demographic. Have a nice day! (or Night)

Ok, but again, there's a cheap adapter. What's the issue? Why would any company buy laptops for everyone if they were fixed units that were hooked up to Ethernet the whole time? They wouldn't ... laptops only offer value to people who move them around all the time. So either using the adapter, or using a desktop really makes a lot of simple sense to companies. I work in a developer in London and we have sensitive data of course, and some people are on Ethernet. But some are on Wifi too. It's really not as big a deal as you're making out. In fact, you're clearly thinking in strictly black and white sense here. Think about it... buy a new bit of hardware for 2K ... and bitch that you have to spend ten bucks on an adapter? Yet the reason is so you can put the machine round your neck every day and feel less pressure on your shoulders when you take the machine to meetings and to your home? I'd MUCH rather have the adapter than have the machine thicker and heavier for one single measly port. And in reality if that's what you had to do every day, so would you

Spirit Dave said,

Wifi is becoming a standard and Ethernet isn't as important. You can't possibly think a company or individual buying one for business/design/development use that needs Ethernet is going to hold off buying an adapter after laying down the money for one of these? No one would. And you can't possibly have the machine that slim WITH ethernet. What would you rather? Personally, the weight and size make a massive difference. Laptops are portable. Most portable systems aren't hooked up to Ethernet. Most are using Wifi. Sure, on a desktop, Ethernet is important because it's being sat in one place permanently, but if you honestly believe Ethernet is that important on a device that's designed to be picked up and moved around constantly, you're utterly wrong. That's just a fact. Apple aren't dumb. If you think they are, you should take a look at their sales figures... sales figures on devices that Neowin people would all complain about being 'limited'. The general public, and now very much so, the business sector doesn't seem to agree with you guys.

Usually I don't comment on crazy posts, however this post is so far beyond reality I could not resist!

Ethernet is not dying, it one of the most important connectivity methods in the world, even more so than Wi-Fi. You make a very valid point about mobility, and yes, Ethernet connectivity is not as popular as Wi-Fi in most modern homes. However Wi-Fi will never have the same security, latency and Class of Service (CoS) offered by Ethernet.

BYOD, which is apparently the next big thing, will mean people will be using their personal devices to do their work. Do you think a bank is going to let their employees use WiFi to work on privileged information? Do you really think a credible and security-conscious MNC is going to connect a wireless AP to their LAN? Of course not! Some organizations might have wireless APs in their office with an Internet connection, wheree you can work via VPN, however it's not as simple as plugging in that LAN cable.

Don't get me wrong, I love using my wireless N router at home, but suggesting Ethernet connectivity is dying is just plain crazy. Ethernet will always be a necessity in today's computing era.

Spirit Dave said,

Wifi is becoming a standard and Ethernet isn't as important. You can't possibly think a company or individual buying one for business/design/development use that needs Ethernet is going to hold off buying an adapter after laying down the money for one of these? No one would. And you can't possibly have the machine that slim WITH ethernet. What would you rather? Personally, the weight and size make a massive difference. Laptops are portable. Most portable systems aren't hooked up to Ethernet. Most are using Wifi. Sure, on a desktop, Ethernet is important because it's being sat in one place permanently, but if you honestly believe Ethernet is that important on a device that's designed to be picked up and moved around constantly, you're utterly wrong. That's just a fact. Apple aren't dumb. If you think they are, you should take a look at their sales figures... sales figures on devices that Neowin people would all complain about being 'limited'. The general public, and now very much so, the business sector doesn't seem to agree with you guys.

Usually I don't comment on crazy posts, however this post is so far beyond reality I could not resist!

Ethernet is not dying, it one of the most important connectivity methods in the world, even more so than Wi-Fi. You make a very valid point about mobility, and yes, Ethernet connectivity is not as popular as Wi-Fi in most modern homes. However Wi-Fi will never have the same security, latency and Class of Service (CoS) offered by Ethernet.

BYOD, which is apparently the next big thing, will mean people will be using their personal devices to do their work. Do you think a bank is going to let their employees use WiFi to work on privileged information? Do you really think a credible and security-conscious MNC is going to connect a wireless AP to their LAN? Of course not! Some organizations might have wireless APs in their office with an Internet connection, wheree you can work via VPN, however it's not as simple as plugging in that LAN cable.

Don't get me wrong, I love using my wireless N router at home, but suggesting Ethernet connectivity is dying is just plain crazy. Ethernet will always be a necessity in today's computing era.

Spirit Dave said,

I work in a developer in London and we have sensitive data of course, and some people are on Ethernet. But some are on Wifi too. It's really not as big a deal as you're making out.

No decent SOX compliant organization has confidential or privileged data sent across Wireless APs. I work with the worlds leading IT, Pharma, Commerce, Global Banking & Finane MNCs and none of them use Wi-Fi for network connectivity.

kizzaaa said,

Usually I don't comment on crazy posts, however this post is so far beyond reality I could not resist!

Ethernet is not dying, it one of the most important connectivity methods in the world, even more so than Wi-Fi. You make a very valid point about mobility, and yes, Ethernet connectivity is not as popular as Wi-Fi in most modern homes. However Wi-Fi will never have the same security, latency and Class of Service (CoS) offered by Ethernet.

BYOD, which is apparently the next big thing, will mean people will be using their personal devices to do their work. Do you think a bank is going to let their employees use WiFi to work on privileged information? Do you really think a credible and security-conscious MNC is going to connect a wireless AP to their LAN? Of course not! Some organizations might have wireless APs in their office with an Internet connection, wheree you can work via VPN, however it's not as simple as plugging in that LAN cable.

Don't get me wrong, I love using my wireless N router at home, but suggesting Ethernet connectivity is dying is just plain crazy. Ethernet will always be a necessity in today's computing era.

Ugh ... shut up will you. MOST of the people who buy these devices will use Wifi on them. END OF STORY.

Your reply was massively dumb because you quoted a post I made about weight and size vs thicker to add a port. I stand by my comments. I couldn't give a crap what company you work for. I guarantee you that most people using computers in this world are using Wifi. Less secure? So what ... most people aren't transferring data that matters. Yes, certain organisations - and I ACKNOWLEDGED THIS YOU MUPPET - will use ethernet heavily for certain things. But do you honestly believe that every goddamn company on the planet is exclusively using Ethernet for every single laptop they use? Give me a break. Get over your stupid self and understand that you're wrong.

Spirit Dave said,

Ugh ... shut up will you. MOST of the people who buy these devices will use Wifi on them. END OF STORY.

Your reply was massively dumb because you quoted a post I made about weight and size vs thicker to add a port. I stand by my comments. I couldn't give a crap what company you work for. I guarantee you that most people using computers in this world are using Wifi. Less secure? So what ... most people aren't transferring data that matters. Yes, certain organisations - and I ACKNOWLEDGED THIS YOU MUPPET - will use ethernet heavily for certain things. But do you honestly believe that every goddamn company on the planet is exclusively using Ethernet for every single laptop they use? Give me a break. Get over your stupid self and understand that you're wrong.

Haha, wow, hey I am just stating facts. You are the one that felt necessary to engage in personal insults, which says much about your opinions and character. ;-)

A little confused at their boot time estimate. My 2.4ghz late 2011 unit with Corsair Force GT 240 boots from start to OSX in 14 seconds. Surely the new Retina would be faster? In fact ... I know it's faster. I've watched videos of it booting. Oh well. Still getting one

Spirit Dave said,
A little confused at their boot time estimate. My 2.4ghz late 2011 unit with Corsair Force GT 240 boots from start to OSX in 14 seconds. Surely the new Retina would be faster? In fact ... I know it's faster. I've watched videos of it booting. Oh well. Still getting one

Well, my Snow Leopard VM boots in 3 and a half seconds

CPressland said,

Well, my Snow Leopard VM boots in 3 and a half seconds

My year old Vaio with a 7200RPM drive boots in about 10 seconds running Windows 8 :-D

44 seconds for a MBA? Doesn't sound right...

Spirit Dave said,
A little confused at their boot time estimate.

good point, the review says the 2013 air took them 44seconds to boot. I have just done a test on mine and it took 14seconds.

McKay said,

My year old Vaio with a 7200RPM drive boots in about 10 seconds running Windows 8 :-D

44 seconds for a MBA? Doesn't sound right...

10 seconds on a standard hard drive?! Sorry but wtf ...

Spirit Dave said,

10 seconds on a standard hard drive?! Sorry but wtf ...

EFI /w Kernel Caching, this is entirely possible with Windows 8. At least if the articles I've been reading are accurate.

Spirit Dave said,

10 seconds on a standard hard drive?! Sorry but wtf ...

Yeah man its a 7400 though not 5400 or even 3200... but yeah the boot times have drastically improved and will continue to

ingramator said,

Yeah man its a 7400 though not 5400 or even 3200... but yeah the boot times have drastically improved and will continue to

Nice. Wasn't disputing it I must admit, boot times never annoyed me til I got my SSD. Now I boot in 14 seconds, I barely have time to get sat down and pour a glass of coke before I'm all ready to work Now I couldn't possibly go back to a 40 second boot (not that my Mac every took that long on the 5400RPM drive it once had).

Spirit Dave said,

Nice. Wasn't disputing it I must admit, boot times never annoyed me til I got my SSD. Now I boot in 14 seconds, I barely have time to get sat down and pour a glass of coke before I'm all ready to work Now I couldn't possibly go back to a 40 second boot (not that my Mac every took that long on the 5400RPM drive it once had).

haha nice

Well' it's a setting so that you can present it natively but smaller or larger but scaled. If you go for larger it will presumably use anti-aliasing giving it a better appearance than a low res display.

bobbba said,
Well' it's a setting so that you can present it natively but smaller or larger but scaled. If you go for larger it will presumably use anti-aliasing giving it a better appearance than a low res display.

Nope, it doesn't use anti-aliasing and things don't really get soft. When using scaling, OS X is rendering everything at twice the resolution and then resampling this onto the Retina resolution. This technique is exploiting the high dpi to give better results than a traditional display viewing e.g. a 1280 resolution on a 1680-wide display.

AnandTech has shown this in greater detail, and the results can be seen at an Apple retailer.

I still don't really understand the Retina display:

If most graphics on screen are using four pixels to represent one, so as to scale elements like a 1440X900 res screen, then how does the screen look better then a 1440X900? Surely it's just a waste of pixels?

Lamp0 said,
I still don't really understand the Retina display:

If most graphics on screen are using four pixels to represent one, so as to scale elements like a 1440X900 res screen, then how does the screen look better then a 1440X900? Surely it's just a waste of pixels?

That is indeed how it works for non-Retina applications on a Retina display, and yes, it's a waste of pixels in that case. For Retina applications (basically all Apple apps including the web browser Safari), each pixel on e Retina display is "just a pixel" with no scaling applied. And things look great. Actually, it still looks awesome even when using the scaling modes, since it is not scaling resolution like a traditional LCD, but actually rendering e.g. 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 in twice the resolution behond the scenes and then downsampling it onto a 2880x1800 surface. So although the default resolution is 1440x900 equivalent (as for text and UI element sizes), you actually get
a 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 display in one.

Lamp0 said,
I still don't really understand the Retina display:

If most graphics on screen are using four pixels to represent one, so as to scale elements like a 1440X900 res screen, then how does the screen look better then a 1440X900? Surely it's just a waste of pixels?

Yes, you're right ... it does look the same... but 4x as sharp. Corners are no longer visible as pixels. Text is entirely smooth. Retina apps, and the OS (which is tuned fully to Retina) show off these graphical enhancements).

Think of it as you would an iPhone 3 and 4 ... the iPhone 3 and 4 have the same sized icons and text etc. Yet the 4 has sharper text. That's because it has exactly 4 times as many pixels in the same space, and the visuals are represented at the same size. So where you'll see a curve of pixels on the 3GS, you'll not see the pixels on that same curve on the iPhone 4. That's the visual difference.

Of course, you can use different display modes to show different sized screens on the unit, but the whole point of retina is clarity, not adding more on screen as you traditionally would on a 'resolution' change.

It's a simple system but one that no one else has done on a laptop or desktop yet.

Hm, I'd like to edit my reply here since I came up with a better explanation, but I can't. Anyway -- don't think of 1440x900 despite the equivalent happens to be that. Just think of a HUGE 2880x1800 resolution crammed down to a 15" screen. Then you'll see how small all pixels become, and how no pixels are wasted, since the text become extremely crisp, as if reading paper, and photos extremely sharp. A full HD 1080p video would at 1:1 resolution only consume a small part of the 15" display.

Now to the 1440x900 part... It's just that 2880x1800 at this dot pitch happens to be equal to 1440x900 at the dot pitch we're more used to. 1440x900 is never used by Apple on this computer though. Nothing is "upscaled".

When choosing to scale the display to 1920x1200 (the "more space" setting above), it's actually rendering everything at a massive 3840x2400 resolution, then downscaling that to the native 2880x1800 resolution. So nothing is still upscaled, only downscaled to the very same very tiny dot pitch. Text still looks crisp.

Hope this explained things better.

Northgrove said,
Hm, I'd like to edit my reply here since I came up with a better explanation, but I can't. Anyway -- don't think of 1440x900 despite the equivalent happens to be that. Just think of a HUGE 2880x1800 resolution crammed down to a 15" screen. Then you'll see how small all pixels become, and how no pixels are wasted, since the text become extremely crisp, as if reading paper, and photos extremely sharp. A full HD 1080p video would at 1:1 resolution only consume a small part of the 15" display.

Now to the 1440x900 part... It's just that 2880x1800 at this dot pitch happens to be equal to 1440x900 at the dot pitch we're more used to. 1440x900 is never used by Apple on this computer though. Nothing is "upscaled".

When choosing to scale the display to 1920x1200 (the "more space" setting above), it's actually rendering everything at a massive 3840x2400 resolution, then downscaling that to the native 2880x1800 resolution. So nothing is still upscaled, only downscaled to the very same very tiny dot pitch. Text still looks crisp.

Hope this explained things better.

I think you complicated it after my reply but hey hehe

Yeah that's right. I'm not going to dig into the reason why Apple has literally been forced down this path but I will say that the resolution screws everything up. Yeah its looks all right for iSheep who use it for Facebook all day but for anyone who tries to do anything productive (who'd have thought someone was using a mac to be productive) or use one of the thousands of non-"retina" (stupid frigging name, high pixel density screens have been around for years) programs it looks like a dogs ass.

As for the comment about watching a video... that's why you can't watch movies on it because Apple thought they could just use their own non-standard aspect ratio and hope for the best. Who wants to watch a movie where 40% of the screen is useless and when there are aspect ratio incosistencies?

Anyway I think the engineering behind the screen is pretty awesome but the price tag and the way they market it us just not acceptable.

Got plenty more to day but whatever.
That is all for now.

ingramator said,
Yeah that's right. I'm not going to dig into the reason why Apple has literally been forced down this path but I will say that the resolution screws everything up. Yeah its looks all right for iSheep who use it for Facebook all day but for anyone who tries to do anything productive (who'd have thought someone was using a mac to be productive) or use one of the thousands of non-"retina" (stupid frigging name, high pixel density screens have been around for years) programs it looks like a dogs ass.

As for the comment about watching a video... that's why you can't watch movies on it because Apple thought they could just use their own non-standard aspect ratio and hope for the best. Who wants to watch a movie where 40% of the screen is useless and when there are aspect ratio incosistencies?

Anyway I think the engineering behind the screen is pretty awesome but the price tag and the way they market it us just not acceptable.

Got plenty more to day but whatever.
That is all for now.

1) They still sell new Macbook NON retina models.
2) Odd aspect? When was the last time all movies matched your TV? Never. Cinema movies that release in their native and correct aspect have black bars on every TV, since TV's are fixed aspect, while movies are shot in various aspects. So that's utterly irrelevant.

iSheep? You seem like a bitter person. You don't want one? Don't get one. Apple hasn't been forced down the path. The Retina technique of adding more pixels to the same space is precisely what's been helping them stand out from the crowd in the past. Now we have XHDPI devices on Android doing the same kind of thing (but on lower grade screens). Seriously, this system is beautiful, and from a programming and design point of view, makes very little difference. Stop being negative about a great new product for no reason.

Spirit Dave said,

1) They still sell new Macbook NON retina models.
2) Odd aspect? When was the last time all movies matched your TV? Never. Cinema movies that release in their native and correct aspect have black bars on every TV, since TV's are fixed aspect, while movies are shot in various aspects. So that's utterly irrelevant.

iSheep? You seem like a bitter person. You don't want one? Don't get one. Apple hasn't been forced down the path. The Retina technique of adding more pixels to the same space is precisely what's been helping them stand out from the crowd in the past. Now we have XHDPI devices on Android doing the same kind of thing (but on lower grade screens). Seriously, this system is beautiful, and from a programming and design point of view, makes very little difference. Stop being negative about a great new product for no reason.

Yes they do still sell non-retina because they don't want people to have to suffer the broken experience from lower to higher res, so yes I do indeed agree with you.

a) I'm not talking about TVs I'm talking about PCs and
b) 16:9 is common place everywhere not wateva the dodgy retina one is, "1080p" is in marketing 1920*1080 (it really means 1080 pixels from top to bottom using the progressive scan display method)

but I CBFd to argue that and yes Apple has been forced down that path and its to do with how they are allowed to display fonts and pixels onscreen. Anyways iSheep will always be iSheep.

Ingramator, what exactly is iSheep?

ingramator said,
Yeah that's right. I'm not going to dig into the reason why Apple has literally been forced down this path but I will say that the resolution screws everything up. Yeah its looks all right for iSheep who use it for Facebook all day but for anyone who tries to do anything productive (who'd have thought someone was using a mac to be productive) or use one of the thousands of non-"retina" (stupid frigging name, high pixel density screens have been around for years) programs it looks like a dogs ass.

As for the comment about watching a video... that's why you can't watch movies on it because Apple thought they could just use their own non-standard aspect ratio and hope for the best. Who wants to watch a movie where 40% of the screen is useless and when there are aspect ratio incosistencies?

Anyway I think the engineering behind the screen is pretty awesome but the price tag and the way they market it us just not acceptable.

Got plenty more to day but whatever.
That is all for now.

ingramator said,

Yes they do still sell non-retina because they don't want people to have to suffer the broken experience from lower to higher res, so yes I do indeed agree with you.

a) I'm not talking about TVs I'm talking about PCs and
b) 16:9 is common place everywhere not wateva the dodgy retina one is, "1080p" is in marketing 1920*1080 (it really means 1080 pixels from top to bottom using the progressive scan display method)

but I CBFd to argue that and yes Apple has been forced down that path and its to do with how they are allowed to display fonts and pixels onscreen. Anyways iSheep will always be iSheep.

I'm sorry ... I've owned 16:9 and 16:10 PC displays in the past. Both are considered viable standards for computer hardware. You've not really made any real sense here. Seems to me, you're just arguing for the sake of it man. And I really am not sure why you're saying retina 'breaks' ... Retina is just 2x graphics. What breaks? When? Tell me. Now. Go on...

What a bitter person...

Thought we were supposed to be tech enthusiasts, not haters drinking haterade bashing others for using a product that's suitable to their wants or needs.

watchthisspace said,
Laptop manufactures should take a leaf or two out of Apple's book. Except for the expensive price tag.

Expensive? It's not expensive. It's priced perfectly. I never understood that. If you want a laptop you know is going to rock for a long time, you buy one of these. I never minded that my Macbook Pro cost me over 2 grand... and my Retina arrives next week too. Giving my late 2011 2.4ghz i7 unit to my girlfriend. Still an incredible machine. And worth every penny.

Spirit Dave said,

Expensive? It's not expensive. It's priced perfectly. I never understood that. If you want a laptop you know is going to rock for a long time, you buy one of these. I never minded that my Macbook Pro cost me over 2 grand... and my Retina arrives next week too. Giving my late 2011 2.4ghz i7 unit to my girlfriend. Still an incredible machine. And worth every penny.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but 98% of products inside your flashy MacBook are the same that are used in various PCs. As for the frame, there are many other laptops out there with resilient casing that will surpass any Apple one and cost a fraction of the price.

ingramator said,

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but 98% of products inside your flashy MacBook are the same that are used in various PCs. As for the frame, there are many other laptops out there with resilient casing that will surpass any Apple one and cost a fraction of the price.

The core components of a Macbook Pro Retina are not the same actually. Most of it is custom build right into the mainboard for size, weight etc. Heat distribution far outweighs the competition, the machine is thinner, lighter. The screen is leaps and bounds ahead of ANY other laptop on the market, and I suspect this will be the case for at least 1 year, if not more. The quality of the hardware, the case, the screen, the glass trackpad etc. It's all far better quality.

Now, in my opinion, it's worth every penny.

For someone like yourself who doesn't need high quality like that, fine ... you seem to think it's not worth it. I personally do. But then, I have a better laptop than someone with any other branded machine. And I use mine every single day all day. And over the course of the years I have these machines, the price ends up being pennies per day. So yes, it is worth it

ingramator said,

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but 98% of products inside your flashy MacBook are the same that are used in various PCs. As for the frame, there are many other laptops out there with resilient casing that will surpass any Apple one and cost a fraction of the price.

Many are offering IPS display ?

Wow in which world do you live cause in mine it's really hard to find IPS monitors and laptops. The stores are flooded with extremely crappy and most of the time unbearable TN panels.

This is not coming from an apple fan. The only apple product i ever owned is an iPod Touch.

Apple makes outstanding laptop. Overpriced ? yes. But not as much as apple haters like to believe.

Spirit Dave said,

The core components of a Macbook Pro Retina are not the same actually. Most of it is custom build right into the mainboard for size, weight etc. Heat distribution far outweighs the competition, the machine is thinner, lighter. The screen is leaps and bounds ahead of ANY other laptop on the market, and I suspect this will be the case for at least 1 year, if not more. The quality of the hardware, the case, the screen, the glass trackpad etc. It's all far better quality.

Now, in my opinion, it's worth every penny.

For someone like yourself who doesn't need high quality like that, fine ... you seem to think it's not worth it. I personally do. But then, I have a better laptop than someone with any other branded machine. And I use mine every single day all day. And over the course of the years I have these machines, the price ends up being pennies per day. So yes, it is worth it

Yes of course it's "custom built" but Apple don't at all manufacture the components within and have very limited design influence over individual electronics. Sure a couple of them were drafted up by some Apple engineers to suit the needs of the particular case but that would only be the screen, keyboard chassis and a few other minor things but the fact is since the early 2000s the stuff under your polished aluminium is the same.

You say the heat distribution outweighs the competition. No. I don't know what your comparing it to but that's not an actual fact that merely you trying to feel better about wasting 2K on a normal laptop. Yes, the MPB does have pretty good heat dissipation but that comes at the expense of personalisation, as all the components are thermo-glued to heat channels that spread across the case.

If you do honestly believe its worth "every penny" then good for you, I wish you the best of luck but to claim it to be resolutionary (<--- see what I did there ) is plain wrong.

ingramator said,

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but 98% of products inside your flashy MacBook are the same that are used in various PCs. As for the frame, there are many other laptops out there with resilient casing that will surpass any Apple one and cost a fraction of the price.


Buddy, show me even ONE PC laptop that has a unibody aluminium shell that's composed of one solid, rigid piece of CNC-machined aluminium? Outside of a Panasonic ToughBook, no other PC laptop frame compares, because even though there are other laptops that use aluminium or magnesium shells, they are not unibody, and hence are not as rigid as a MBP. Especially the LCD lid, on a MBP, they are STRONG! Every PC laptop I've tried to flex the lid on, I can do it with two fingers!