What to buy?

[josephmccutchen]

First off, I'm really thankful for everyone who participates in this forum. Various people here helped me out a few years back in choosing a MBP.

I'm in that position again, and here's what I'm facing:

1. Buy a rMBP with 16GB RAM. I would do that because the RAM is nonupgradeable; just max it out.

For me, the cons with the rMBP are that the only thing that can be upgraded is the SSD, and those are expensive; especially for me, because I crave space, having around 500GB of data that I like to keep on the internal drive, and also on a Time Machine Backup. Not interested in continually transferring data back and forth because of a lack of space.

Also, not really interested in spending approximately $3000 if I don't have to; I travel abroad a lot, and money is tight.

2. Buy a non-retina MBP, and upgrade the RAM/HDD/SSD as I did before with my 2010 model. Cheaper, too.

The problem with this could be the screen resolution; for me, that might not be such a big deal, but I hear that it looks nice. But looks alone won't convince me. It has to perform well. How is the performance of the rMPB vs. a 2012 non-rmbp?

I do a lot of photography (little editing, not using Photoshop), but I do a lot of video editing (iMovie, Premiere). Not much else that would be CPU/GPU intensive.

The clincher for me would be buyers' remorse: will I regret not buying a rmbp if I choose not to?

Sorry this is a bit long; just searching for answers. Thanks for your help, and keep up the good work!

 

[cwa107]

All performance-related components can be pretty much configured identically between the Retina and non-Retina MacBook Pro. So, performance should be equal, given equal configuration.

The Retina display isn't magic. It's also not particularly innovative. Extremely high resolution displays on laptops have been done before, typically with very unsatisfactory results. When you put a very high resolution in a small panel, unless you're manipulating the display with software, the net result is that everything is very tiny.

So, what the Retina MacBook Pro does is blow up applications, images and text when it's not specifically tuned for the display (which is true of about 99% of the software on the market). What this results in is blurry images - which belies the intent of the Retina display in the first place.

If you don't believe me, try this on your current MacBook Pro... pop in a DVD and set it to play in full screen. Does it look fuzzy? Pixelated? Don't remember noticing that the last time you watched it on your TV? That's precisely the effect that I'm talking about. You're watching low-res, blown up video on a high-res display that it wasn't designed to run on.

Now, translate that into just about every program that hasn't been specifically optimized for the Retina display (and there's a lot of them out there - in fact, most of them) and you've just gotten a taste for what the Retina display does for you (i.e. nothing).

Add to that the epoxied battery, lack of an optical drive, no chance of upgrading, and you've got a really poor case for spending an additional $500 (or more) on a Retina MacBook Pro. I really wish that Apple would have just called this thing the 15" MacBook Air, because a 'Pro' machine, it is not.

 

[Rperez414]

The buyers remorse depends on whether you ever use a retina macbook or not. If you use one, YES, you will wish you had gotten one and kick yourself that went the cheap route. If you don't ever look at one, no, you won't have buyers remorse.

But I'll tell you this. The glare reduction alone is worth the cost. It makes your eyes less tired and is alot easier to use in a bright office. Also, if you read alot of text, that is much easier on the retina screen. To me, the extra $200 (13" macbook pro) for a retina screen is inconsequential compared to the daily benefit of less eye strain.

Also, the resale values will start to plummet on the non-Retina laptops as more and more people want the Retina screen and won't want the older macbooks. You might want to factor that in when you think of a cheaper macbook. It won't be as cheap as you think after the depreciation hit.

 

[cwa107]

But I'll tell you this. The glare reduction alone is worth the cost. It makes your eyes less tired and is alot easier to use in a bright office. Also, if you read alot of text, that is much easier on the retina screen. To me, the extra $200 (13" macbook pro) for a retina screen is inconsequential compared to the daily benefit of less eye strain.

Or, you could go with the anti-glare matte screen on the 15" MBP, which would yield an even more glare-free experience, if that's of concern.

Also, the resale values will start to plummet on the non-Retina laptops as more and more people want the Retina screen and won't want the older macbooks. You might want to factor that in when you think of a cheaper macbook. It won't be as cheap as you think after the depreciation hit.

I don't think that's necessarily true. All MacBook models retain very high resale. The higher-res screen to some buyers (myself included) would actually be detrimental. Frankly, the built-in optical drive, upgradeability of memory and storage are huge pluses in terms of resale, relative to the Retina MacBook Pro.

My Inspiron 8200 had Dell's super-high res screen that commanded a $400 premium over the standard model. It ran 1600x1200 on a 15" 4:3 display, compared to the 1024x768 of the standard model. 3 years later, the upgraded display made no difference in terms of resale.

 

[Neurotic]

I'm facing the same dilemma. I went to the apple store today to purchase a retina 13 inch Macbook pro with 256GB of hard drive. The main reasons behind this is 1) it's lighter than a regular Macbook pro. 2) Supposedly faster performance (which now appears to be only associated with 15 inch rMBP quad core processors) and 3) why cheap out and go for an old outdated end of cycle device when I could get a new one just released/renewed this Feb!!

Of course, as soon as I got there, I started having my usual doubts. Getting the regular Macbook pro would save me around $500 which is quite a hefty amount. The rMBP would set me back $1600 and I want it to be perfect as it's the only laptop I'll be using for the next 5 years. My current laptop is the original white Macbook from 2008. Previously, I've never had any hardware nor software issues minus the occasional lag/crash from Safari, but that's about it. What got me super doubtful now is that the Genius in the Mac store said "of anything were to go wrong in the Retina, it would cost you oh so very much to repair it" ..............I don't wanna spend a fortune with possibility of malfunction (even though previous Macbook never malfunctioned on me) that would require costly repair; especially since I don't live in the US (here only for a month!) and I wouldn't have access to proper APPLE repair if something were to go wrong. So here I am, back home and confused on which to get. Any input??

Oh, also, people who bought their rMBP's last August were reporting image burn-out? I assumed that was fixed with the new cycle macbooks though.

 

[chas_m]

The Mac Genius either didn't finish his sentence or was flat-out wrong.

What he MEANT to say was that if anything goes wrong with the Retina MacBook Pro, Apple will repair it FOR FREE under your warranty (which, obviously, makes it a good idea to buy AppleCare for Retina devices).*

*The warranty covers manufacturer defect, not user abuse of course. Pour a cola on your RMBP and you're out of luck, but if the flash drives dies through no fault of yours they'll replace it free for you.

 

[Rperez414]

I don't think that's necessarily true. All MacBook models retain very high resale. The higher-res screen to some buyers (myself included) would actually be detrimental. Frankly, the built-in optical drive, upgradeability of memory and storage are huge pluses in terms of resale, relative to the Retina MacBook Pro.

Normally, I'd agree with what you. Mac resale stays high because the older models still retain alot of cachet with potential buyers. But as Steve Jobs once said "This changes everything". The Retina screen is truly a groundbreaking advance beyond a processor jump or Hard drive upgrade. Those kind of upgrades are more "invisible" to potential buyers who are willing to pass them up for a better deal.You have to convince the buyer why they want a better CPU or Hard Drive. But the Retina screen needs no explanation. People will do side-by-side comparisons and won't be able to sleep until they get one or it'll be because they passed it up and regret it. It's that good.

The iphone 4 changed the entire smartphone market and the retina screen is doing the same for laptops.

I wouldn't rush out to upgrade to a Retina Macbook if I purchased one before they came out. But buying a non-Retina macbook now for most people is going to result in a lot of regret for most of 'em. Here is my theory, and I was a Financial Analyst for Gateway Computers. The problem is, 13" Retina macbook Pro's or Airs are going to soon be selling for $1000 - 1500 new. That means used ones will be going for 80- 90% of that. Which will push down the cost of non-Retina macbooks of any ilk.

 

[chscag]

The problem is, 13" Retina macbook Pro's or Airs are going to soon be selling for $1000 - 1500 new. That means used ones will be going for 80- 90% of that. Which will push down the cost of non-Retina macbooks of any ilk.

I hope your right, but for now it's pure speculation. Mac resale values will always remain high simply because they're in demand and folks know they're buying quality.

So you were a financial analyst for cow box machines? I remember when they were very popular. I loved their keyboard, it was one the best I've ever used along with the old IBM ones.

 

[Neurotic]

Well, whatever. Decided to take a leap of faith and go get the 13 inch retina display. Off to the store in 45 minutes. Will update.