Apple MacBook Pro with Retina Display Review (2012) Discussion

[Karamazovmm]

A similar Dell XPS 15(the new one) is $1699. You can stick a 256GB SSD in it for less than $200. Additionally, Dell will probably drop the price after a few months.

Sent from my HTC One S

there is a good gap in gpu performance

[Jufluco]

Err... am I the only one troubled by the very high temperatures focused right on the screen??

[J.R. Nelson]

Err... am I the only one troubled by the very high temperatures focused right on the screen??

The screen itself stays a fair bit cooler than you might think. The way the vents are set up, hot air is funneled more parallel to the screen than hitting it straight on.

I don't think we need to worry about temperatures actually affecting the scren in this model.

there is a good gap in gpu performance

It's also substantially heavier. It does have an optical drive though, with the option for Blu-ray - which may be important to some.

[Mackan]

Too bad it's a 15'' they release first. Having a retina display on the 13'' would make more sense to me. But it was fairly obvious they would do it this way. The people who can't resist will go out and buy it now, even though a 13'' would suit them better. Apple tests the water with this model.

Later, probably by late Fall, they will update the 13'' with retina display. So, more waiting...

[ZaZ]

I don't know, this seems like when they try to sell you the true coat at the dealership. While I'm sure the display is very nice, you can only ramp the resolution up so far before it become irrelevant or unreadable. I think my X220 at 1/3 the cost offers far better value. Since I'm not Bill Gates' kid, I probably won't be getting one and would Bill Gates' kid get a Mac anyway?

[treynolds]

So it's a review of the new Macbook Pro with Retina display, yet the prices and links refernce the Macbook Air? These machine are twice the price of those quoted... Please fix this. Thanks.

[Sphinx]

While the "more space" option adds alot of functionality, the quality doesnt seem anything special. Going from a retina MBP to my precision was easy and no noticeable change in quality. The space though is something to lust after.

[James D]

What can I say about this macbook?

Finally I know Why do I need Camera with 10-16 Megapixels!
It must be a pleasure to look photos on 16:10 retina display!

[Cedricm]

The review is indeed overly effusive.

I have no doubt that the retina display looks awesome.
But the truth is retina display is not ready for primetime and does not make sense in 2012 due to the limitations of graphic cards and batteries.

It isn't even well supported for most applications, offering an inferior experience than with a standard full hd panel.
On the one hand the resolution is way too high to work confortably at full res on such a small screen. On the other hand what is the point of scaling everything 4x?

So while it will certainly be of interest to see an overview of a high res photography, most retouching is done at high levels of zooming making the retina display of limited use.

An analogy can be found with digital cameras' sensors.
They pack more and more MPixels every year, but in the same surface. This simply doesn't make much sense, with pixel sensors getting smaller and smaller, i.e. getting less and less light and causing other troubles (i.e. need for very high def lenses that simply don't exist at these price points).

So the truth is there is a point where only a bigger sensor makes sense to shoot better higher res photos: full frame then medium format then stitching or multishot.

In the same way there comes a point where only a bigger screen makes sense, such as a 30" on a desktop when you need more pixels.

[J.R. Nelson]

The review is indeed overly effusive.

I have no doubt that the retina display looks awesome.
But the truth is retina display is not ready for primetime and does not make sense in 2012 due to the limitations of graphic cards and batteries.

It isn't even well supported for most applications, offering an inferior experience than with a standard full hd panel.
On the one hand the resolution is way too high to work confortably at full res on such a small screen. On the other hand what is the point of scaling everything 4x?

So while it will certainly be of interest to see an overview of a high res photography, most retouching is done at high levels of zooming making the retina display of limited use.

An analogy can be found with digital cameras' sensors.
They pack more and more MPixels every year, but in the same surface. This simply doesn't make much sense, with pixel sensors getting smaller and smaller, i.e. getting less and less light and causing other troubles (i.e. need for very high def lenses that simply don't exist at these price points).

So the truth is there is a point where only a bigger sensor makes sense to shoot better higher res photos: full frame then medium format then stitching or multishot.

In the same way there comes a point where only a bigger screen makes sense, such as a 30" on a desktop when you need more pixels.

I disagree - it's as enjoyable as high-resolution screens are on phones and tablets - it's easier to read text, and you can take advantage of doubled UI elements at the same time as viewing native, or nearer-to, photos and videos.

Your camera sensor metaphor doesn't hold water - this is not analogous to the worsening response you get for pushing the megapixel count on the same sized sensors. Given that all other things are equal, a higher resolution panel is almost objectively better than a lower resolution one - especially one that is sufficiently high to precisely double a useful lower count (e.g., 2880x1800 to 1440x900).

The one thing I think I can agree with, though, is comparing it to other screens. If you are the sort of user who would only buy a 15-inch notebook with a 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 screen, or run the new MBP at a similar resolution, then I don't think you're going to see a lot of difference between this screen and an alternate (assuming both are decent IPS panels).