The rumored NEW MacBook!

[Rich O Brien]

“Applications must support the Retina Display with suitably high-resolution graphics, and if they don’t it’s a recipe for visual disaster. Apple’s own Mail, Calendar, Address Book, Safari, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, Aperture and Final Cut Pro are all Retina-optimized, but most third-party apps aren’t, and the difference between them is brutally obvious.

This would be a major reason for not purchasing. Why pay such a price to only frown at the screen each time your unoptimized app is running.

A non-retina version should be available also. I fear that websites will hurry to get retina-ready to only slow load time on web pages.

I recently looked at the retina on the iPad and it's incredible but is the web ready for it?

Also are 17" MacBook Pros upgradeable to 8gb RAM?

[Jeff Hammond]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/257717/vizios_ultrabook_pcs_real_macbook_air_rivals_at_last.html

i'm not sure why they're comparing that to a macbook air.. size wise, it's more in the realm of the macbook pros in which case, the mbp is way better..

for reference, here's a picture of an 11" macbook air next to an iPad.. it's not even a laptop, really…

mba_ipad.JPG

This would be a major reason for not purchasing. Why pay such a price to only frown at the screen each time your unoptimized app is running.

A non-retina version should be available also. I fear that websites will hurry to get retina-ready to only slow load time on web pages.

I recently looked at the retina on the iPad and it's incredible but is the web ready for it?

Also are 17" MacBook Pros upgradeable to 8gb RAM?

yeah, 8gb in the 17s for a couple of years now.. the new ones (mid2012) can take 16.. (but the 17" model has been discontinued as of this week..)


re the resolution.. apple has implemented a sweet scaling scheme into the mix.. (i.e.- different than running the screens as a non-native resolution)

according to anandtech :

Even at the non-integer scaled 1680 x 1050 setting, the Retina Display looks a lot better than last year's high-res panel. It looks like Apple actually renders the screen at twice the selected resolution before scaling it to fit the 2880 x 1800 panel (in other words, at 1920 x 1200 Apple is rendering everything at 3840 x 2400 (!) before scaling - this is likely where the perf impact is seen, but I'm trying to find a way to quantify that now). Everything just looks better. I also appreciate how quick it is to switch between resolutions on OS X. When I'm doing a lot of work I prefer the 1920 x 1200 setting, but if I'm in content consumption mode I find myself happier at 1440 x 900 or 1680 x 1050.

i have the 1680x1050 hi-res (i guess i gotta quit calling this thing hi-res ) 15" and it's amazing.. so the reviewer is saying it looks even better when run at this size so….
it's easy to switch and i assume some little utilities will come out soon which makes it very easy to switch..

so that + the ability to go to 2880 ? (and really, i don't think it will be too long until most things catch up with the resolution.. including other manufacturers.. apple is paving the way on this one)

not sure about whether or not the internet can handle it but it's in motion now.. consumers can't stop it from happening so why worry about it (actually, consumers are going to be the driving force behind it and anyone that want to cap resolution is more likely than not, sol )

[Jeff Hammond]

[
A non-retina version should be available also.

there is:

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/s ... pro/select

same innards but cheaper (but if you get the ssd in there, the prices will get much closer to one another..)

[edit] actually, the non retina version is more expensive if you upgrade it to the comparable 512ssd which ships standard with the retinas..
?
or maybe i'm missing something

[Rich O Brien]

But aren't the non retina version just the older shape?

I'm talking about getting the latest in non retina.

[Jeff Hammond]

But aren't the non retina version just the older shape?

I'm talking about getting the latest in non retina.

yeah. it's the old body. (a hard drive still fits in there where as it wont fit in the new form.. it's weird that apple has this going on too.. usually, once they decide to make a change (no cd-rom / ssd) they make a sweeping change with no intermediate models)

[Rich O Brien]

This cleared up a bit of the whole retina concept. Good read.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-33620_3-57454 ... -displays/

[bmike]

But aren't the non retina version just the older shape?

I'm talking about getting the latest in non retina.

yeah. it's the old body. (a hard drive still fits in there where as it wont fit in the new form.. it's weird that apple has this going on too.. usually, once they decide to make a change (no cd-rom / ssd) they make a sweeping change with no intermediate models)

Agree, but I guess that the production is pretty limited on the retina. My bet is that next year the airs and pro line will get it. What was known as the MacBook will fade into those 2 lines.

[Jeff Hammond]

re: apple pricing


hmm.. i think it might be time for me to switch to pc.. or at least, do any online travel reservations on a pc


http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/25/orb ... mac-users/

Travel shopping site Orbitz is offering more expensive hotels to Mac users because the company found Mac users prefer more luxurious rooms, reports the Wall Street Journal.


Orbitz noted that it was is not showing different prices for the same room to different users, but was presenting pricier hotels more prominently to Mac users than those using Windows. Users can rank hotel options by price and get the same listings no matter what platform they are using.

[EDIT] or sht.. maybe i should just eat my words.. i'm on my way to miami today for a month.. will i be staying at motel6?

nah.. a sweet little villa on the beach

23-1.jpg

[Rich O Brien]

Nice!

[Jeff Hammond]

Nice!

well, the client is paying for it so I don't think it counts towards this orbitz thing..
he uses an iPad for his computer but I think the acct dept is on pcs.