# Apple Announces new MacBook Pro with retina display...



## Wrathwilde (Jun 11, 2012)

No Optical Drive, modeled after the Air.

It's got a Retina display; 15.4-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit display with IPS technology; 2880-by-1800 resolution at 220 pixels per inch. (My 27" iMac only has 2560x1440)

Memory 8GB std, up to 16GB. (an upgrade from 8GB to 16GB is only $200) ;D cheap by apple standards.

Flash Drives, 256GB or 512GB std., 512GB model upgradeable to 768GB (for $500). 

Base price $2199, a maxed out version will run you $3749 for 2.7GHz i7, 16GB memory and 768GB Flash Storage,

USB-3, Dual Thunderbolt, backlit keyboard.

CR won't let me link to the apple store link to the MacBook Pros. so you'll have to go to the apple site and find it on your own.

No announcement for an update to the Mac Pro


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2012)

Minor point, but also announced was a new FW800 to Thunderbolt dongle - great as it will allow me to connect my FW800 external drives to my MBAir with something faster than USB2.


----------



## RunAndGun (Jun 11, 2012)

I've been planning on updating this year around late summer/early fall. My 2009 17" MBP will be three in August(and the warranty will be up). As I had feared, they killed off the 17"(and in turn, since it was exclusive to it, the ExpressCard slot) and internal optical drive. Collateral damage also included the FW800 port and Ethernet port, so dongles will be necessary. At least most of my external drives are Seagate GoFlex so I can use the USB 3.0 adapter or shell out the $100 for the Thunderbolt adapter. The FW and EC34 won't be too big of a deal. USB 3.0 and ThunderBolt drives and card readers will be faster than what I've been used to. I'm glad to see the high rez Retina Display, 16GB's of RAM and faster processors, but I've been hoping for 1TB of internal factory storage for a while. One you may have missed: Apple has introduced a new "MagSafe 2" connector/power supply for the new laptop, but at least they have a cheap($9.99) adapter that will let you use your old MagSafe power supplies with it, which is good because between me and my GF, we have five around the house and in our backpacks for travel. Maybe I'll ride over to one of the Apple Stores tomorrow(we have two within 15 mins of each other) and check out the new display and see if I want to go ahead and order since it says on-line it would take 3-5 weeks to build/receive a maxed out one anyway.


----------



## Wrathwilde (Jun 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Minor point, but also announced was a new FW800 to Thunderbolt dongle - great as it will allow me to connect my FW800 external drives to my MBAir with something faster than USB2.



That's welcome, as I do have firewire 800 drives too and a firewire scanner (The scanner isn't used too often anymore). I can't wait until the Thunderbolt drives start dropping in price. There's really no reason a 12GB Thunderbolt RAID should cost twice as much as a 12GB Firewire 800/eSATA RAID solution using the same drives. $100-$300 more? That would be reasonable, but $1200 more is just insane.

There are also some cool Thunderbolt Docking stations coming out too. Sunix has a Thunderbolt Dock coming out hat has a blu-ray writer, a hot swappable 6Gbps 3.5 HDD bay, (4ea) USB 3 ports, Gigabit LAN port, SPDIF and a multiformat card reader (although it doesn't look like CF is one of the card types supported). 

Sounds awesome.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Jun 11, 2012)

i am actually installing a new aperture update, and it has quite a few things listed, including better shadow/highlights.


----------



## semmiecircle (Jun 12, 2012)

Haven't heard anyone mention the HDMI yet, but would that mean that you could run an uncompressed video stream into the new macbook for live streaming or recording large chunks of video?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2012)

semmiecircle said:


> Haven't heard anyone mention the HDMI yet, but would that mean that you could run an uncompressed video stream into the new macbook for live streaming or recording large chunks of video?



Not sure, but doubtful. Historically, Apple's video ports have always been output only, not input.


----------



## RunAndGun (Jun 12, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> i am actually installing a new aperture update, and it has quite a few things listed, including better shadow/highlights.



Just attempted to update from 3.2.4 (that I DL'd about a month or so ago) to 3.3(todays update) and it's apparently not compatible with Snow Leopard. Said it requires Lion(10.7.4 or higher).


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 12, 2012)

sweet! i'll be getting one of those for sure!

that screen looks awesome


----------



## Wrathwilde (Jun 12, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> sweet! i'll be getting one of those for sure!
> 
> that screen looks awesome



That makes two of us. 

I just wish they'd update the Mac Pro too... with a raid solution that runs off a dedicated, bootable, high-speed channel that can take full advantage of 4 internal SSD drives in RAID 0.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2012)

Count me out. I want a 17", please! I like my 17" for a workhorse machine, and my 13" Air for travel. The 15" is too small for desk use and to big to be really portable, IMO the worst of both worlds (despite the wonderful display)...


----------



## RunAndGun (Jun 12, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Count me out. *I want a 17", please!* I like my 17" for a workhorse machine, and my 13" Air for travel. The 15" is too small for desk use and to big to be really portable, IMO the worst of both worlds (despite the wonderful display)...



I'm with you, brother. My last two laptops have both been 17"'s. But as we all know too well, Apple has a bad habit of "take it or leave" when it comes to their products and software. And when new products are announced, the previous generation "disappears". So I can't even order the 17" that was still "current" Sunday afternoon before WWDC. My 17" MBP is still working, but is showing it's age now on some programs like the last update of DPP and Aperture. And DXO has never been super speedy on my machine, either.

I like a lot of the specs on the new Retina MBP, I can even live with having to use an external optical drive, but killing the 17" screen REALLY sucks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2012)

Amazon and other 3rd parties are still selling the 17" models. Mine is early 2011, Core i5 and decently snappy (replaced a 2007 17", which were the very first gen 17" MBP), plus my Air is newer, after the 2011 refresh, so at least I'm not in a hurry to update.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 13, 2012)

2 expensive for what it does for me.


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 13, 2012)

Not to be a sharp stick in the mud (I usually just ignore new product hype) but is this, perhaps, too much resolution? Should be fine (actually quite nice) if the OS and software can readily scale onscreen content back up to make up for the fact that everything otherwise will get smaller on the already somewhat small 15" screen. Without re-scaling however, the windows, text and buttons and whatnot will be quite small on an already small 15" screen. I'm sure Apple has something in mind other than just chosing a smaller resolution in the display options, because Apple is the bestest in the world at everything and really knows what they are doings.

I was worried when I switched to dual 22" wide-screens for my desktop that their seemingly small 1680x1050 resolutions would not be enough. Far from it, it was the perfect resolution for working. Before that I was used to very large, very heavy, CRT, Sony Trinitron displays. I had 3 of them, one close to a 30", a 21" and a smaller one off to the side, 15" or so. They all had higher resolution than the newer, smaller, flat panels, the largest one went a bit over 1920x1080, don't remember specifically what it was, but once I made the switch I couldn't have been happier. It was much easier on my eyes and I was never craving for more space. After that switch I never much concerned myself with super high resolutions, but I do prefer when possible to match exactly the HD 1920x1080P spec, something my current 12.5" machine doesn't and shouldn't do, but it still has the perfect working space size for imaging on such a small screen.

In all, this just seems like number pushing, which they already were doing before.


----------



## bchernicoff (Jun 13, 2012)

I am also anxious to see how such high resolution works in the real world. Viewing some web pages on my 27" iMac with it's 256x1400 resolution is not without challenge. Usually, I just Cmd + few times to scale the page's contents, but the effect is not always perfect with some UI elements and page layouts not playing along well. 2880x1800 resolution on a 15" screen will be a much greater challenge I think. I'm sure Safari will have special automatic scaling by default, but I don't use Safari. Will Chrome and Firefox their browsers for one model of laptop?

So, if most of the content the laptop consumes must be scaled, I ultimately have to wonder what the advantages of such high resolution will be. 

UPDATE: I apparently you can't actually use it at 2880x1800. It forces you to scale the resolution to one of: 1024 x 640, 1280 x 800, 1440 x 900, 1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1200. AnandTech has the write up: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5996/how-the-retina-display-macbook-pro-handles-scaling

So, now I really have to wonder.. I can't even view pictures at high resolution? So, basically this thing is useful for making text look smoother? Come on...


----------



## samueljay (Jun 13, 2012)

It also hasn't been mentioned yet that they have killed the option for a non-glossy / matte screen, which I can imagine a lot of pros being very upset about, since it's still offered on the regular pro's for a premium (used to be the standard)

In regard to resolution, when I bought my Macbook Pro (15", 2009, Core i7) I opted for the Higher Resolution Anti-Glare screen, and boy am I glad I did, the extra resolution is definitely welcome, it means I can have an internet page and word document open at the same time, work in final cut with greater ease, and also work with photos in photoshop easier. The Retina display will be much better again! I was worried about the writing / screens being way too small to be readable, but it was never an issue 

Also, I'm now in a similar situation as I was when I ordered my last laptop... I need to upgrade, and I've been wanting to upgrade to desktop (iMac) however they haven't upgraded them (similar situation last time) and as such, the Laptops have actually surpassed / matched the desktops in specs.. so it makes the decision a lot harder.


----------



## NormanBates (Jun 13, 2012)

given how I work, a computer with no ethernet is useless to me
and no, a $100 thunderbolt-to-ethernet adapter is not a good solution

not that it matters, anyway, since thing costs twice as much as it shoud, and, right now, can only display 1920x1200, uprezzed
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5996/how-the-retina-display-macbook-pro-handles-scaling


----------



## studio1972 (Jun 13, 2012)

The really good news is that the retina display will surely be applied through the entire range over the next year or two, I'd like a 27" iMac with Retina (with 2 internal drives as well if possible).


----------



## iTasneem (Jun 13, 2012)

It is too expensive


----------



## Chewy734 (Jun 13, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> given how I work, a computer with no ethernet is useless to me
> and no, a $100 thunderbolt-to-ethernet adapter is not a good solution



It's only $29. If you're going to complain, might as well have your facts straight. I'm also not happy about the lack of built-in ethernet, and I feel that if they weren't going to include it, they shouldn't charge the $29 for the accessory. I have heard, however, that a small percentage of people are using ethernet these days, so I guess it was something they felt they could get rid of. I must be an exception, since I use ethernet 100% of the time at work because of security reasons (they don't have wifi).

Also, to those of you out there who are complaining about the high price... why do you think so? Are there comparable laptops out there for much cheaper?


----------



## bchernicoff (Jun 13, 2012)

Chewy734 said:


> Also, to those of you out there who are complaining about the high price... why do you think so? Are there comparable laptops out there for much cheaper?



I don't think asking if there are comparable laptops out there is the right question to ask. I don't see a single Windows user finally coming to Mac just because of this model.

The question is how does it compare to the other 15" Mac Book Pro? Why is this screen option limited to this thinner model. They are asking their customers to choose amongst trade-offs. Want the new screen and slightly decreased weight but willing to give up an optical drive, ethernet etc... buy this new model. It shouldn't be that choice. Both the standard 15" MBP and the new thinner one should have all three screen options (1440x900, 1680x1050, 2880x1800).


----------



## Wilmark (Jun 13, 2012)

I cant wait for this technology to go mainstream - 24"+ at 250dpi. This is what is needed to improve the computing experience up the the next level. Windows needs to fix the issues with this though, I am sure apple will get it right. Windows cannot scale properly for high resolutions. Certain things must scale with the dpi and certain elements must remain the same size. What i am really looking forward to is NO discernible pixels. However i am afraid that the average consumer is clueless about the importance of this technology. Most people dont distinguish between phones that have near HD resolutions and those that sill carry 600 x 480. When apple introduced the latest ipad the retina display was probably the most significant improvement - most consumers were more interested in improvements like more camera megapixels etc. So we may have to wait long for this to go mainstream. I know photography buffs will appreciate it.


----------



## Chewy734 (Jun 13, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> Chewy734 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, to those of you out there who are complaining about the high price... why do you think so? Are there comparable laptops out there for much cheaper?
> ...



You make a valid point. However, let's take the 15" MBP and add to it just the 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD options, since those are standard in the 15" MBP Retina. What you see is that it costs $200 *MORE* than the Retina model. So basically, you are getting the Retina display for $200 _*less*_, but giving up the optical drive, ethernet port, etc. However, you are gaining additional ports. Additionally, buying the external optical drive, ethernet port adaptor, etc will cost you much less than the $200 difference.

So, assuming you are willing to part with those options being built-in to the laptop, the Retina models are cheaper than the comparable non-Retina models.

The only thing that bothers me with this current lineup is the lack of the 13" MBP with Retina display. It could've easily been done at a nicer price-point than the 15".


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 13, 2012)

samueljay said:


> ...Laptops have actually surpassed / matched the desktops in specs.. so it makes the decision a lot harder.



No, they haven't. Albiet the marketing/naming conventions used are purposely confusing.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html


----------



## EchoLocation (Jun 13, 2012)

Chewy734 said:


> Also, to those of you out there who are complaining about the high price... why do you think so? Are there comparable laptops out there for much cheaper?


This is what I'm trying to figure out. I have a netbook now and a desktop for editing. I'm thinking about buying the 13 inch MBP for a year long trip I'm taking to South America next year to do photo editing on. Was thinking of getting the refurb i7 from the end of 2011 for around $1150. But now i'm wondering if I should just buy a smaller MacBook Air sized ultrabook(with hopefully better specs and around the same price or cheaper than 1100 bucks.) 
Does anyone have any suggestions?
Is windows or mac better for editing?
thanks in advance!


----------



## TotoEC (Jun 13, 2012)

Unless this MacBook can take pictures of the back of the lens cap or in total darkness, I'm not impressed!


----------



## bornshooter (Jun 13, 2012)

how will lightroom work with this new retina display?i know aperture has been optimised for the retina display but thats no use to me anyway would be for quick edits on the go so maybe i am better with a macbook air as i have my current mbp and cinema display for work at home decisions decisions lol


----------



## Chewy734 (Jun 13, 2012)

bornshooter said:


> how will lightroom work with this new retina display?i know aperture has been optimised for the retina display but thats no use to me anyway would be for quick edits on the go so maybe i am better with a macbook air as i have my current mbp and cinema display for work at home decisions decisions lol



I'm sure Adobe will update their CS suite and LR software to accomodate the new, higher-resolution displays. I don't think it's a matter of if, rather when.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jun 13, 2012)

I have been in a dire need of an upgrade to my OLD 17" MacBook Pro Intel core 2 duo. The last model before the shiny black screen unibody version. I know, that was over 5 YEARS AGO! But it is still working flawlessly.

It was nice to be able to change the battery on my own on that version....

Any way, after the announcement I ran out and just picked up the latest/ last 17" model. I live in NYC, and I don't have the space for a "desktop". To me, the 17" is a perfect portable desktop.


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 13, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> Chewy734 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, to those of you out there who are complaining about the high price... why do you think so? Are there comparable laptops out there for much cheaper?
> ...



Windows and Mac use mostly the same tools for editing and mostly use the same underlying hardware in both systems, so for all intents and purposes they are nearly identical while actually using the tools you will likely use to edit. If you prefer the operating experience/user interface of one over the other, or if a single piece of editing software that is exclusive to one or the other is indispensable to you, then your choices become obviously, limited.

That said, if you are looking for a cheaper budget/travel laptop editing machine (and not just a bleeding edge, top of the line rig) then I think it would be a mistake to try to match specs. There are for example, processors out in the wild for $1,000 that are only marginally faster than $300 cpu's. Same with every component in the system. You should be able to find a good value in the machines you are already looking at, if you want more power for the same price or would prefer a cheaper price altogether, you will probably find some accommodations on the Windows PC side of things. And to be blunt, any current mid-range or better laptop is for most purposes, including professional ones, overkill for 2D image editing alone so you have little to worry about. If you are gaming or doing something much more intensive, you probably already know what you will need and aren't even reading this....

Personally I opted for a cheaper, less powerful, reasonably portable machine with a multi-touch + wacom digitizer built into the screen that can eek out something like 18 hours in power saving, low-usage mode. I can do normal editing work, and general usage computing away from a plug basically all day if and when needed and I don't need to bring along any external tablets or any other accessories. All in all, I'm fairly happy with that decision to put it humbly, my choices on what to buy for photography equipment on the other hand were naive at best but in the end I have most what I need if not more...

I did a test, putting a 2pixel by 2pixel image in photoshop and painted a black and white checker pattern on it displayed at 100% on this screen which has a rather humble 1366x768 12.5" display. All I will say is that I'm laughing inside. My head has to be over the keyboard to readily discern individual pixels even at high contrasts. Good luck with whatever you buy, hope it serves you well. Cheers.

edit: I've attached a 32x32 pixel black and white checker grid. If you view it at 100% each black or white patch should fill exactly 1 pixel on your display. Unless you get close, it will probably look most similar to a 50% gray patch, as it does on my monitor, which probably has about as low of a resolution as you can even get outside of a netbook or phone.


----------



## 7enderbender (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm pretty disappointed since I was getting ready to "go Mac". Both my laptop and my desktop are in need of replacement.

I had kind of settled on the idea of first getting a Mac Mini, trick that out a bit and connect two good monitors. Should work for my photo editing and audio recording needs. I had hoped for an update on that one.

Next I was thinking about something like the 15" or 17" hi res matte MBP. On the one hand it's good that those are still available (even with USB3 now) - but then there is the MBP "retina" which let's me rethink the whole idea of moving away from Windows PCs/laptops.

If that is the direction they are going then I want nothing to do with it. Let me explain: first there is the "retina" display which is really supposed to operate at 1400x900 resolution equivalent in order to work as designed. The "retina" part is probably nice with programs that are designed that way and actually show photos and videos at full 2800 resolution. But there is no gain in real estate - actually there is a loss compared to the previous "hi res" versions. Wondering how the scaling to 1600 or 1900 looks.

But worse: has anyone seen the "iFixit" tear down of the thing? Zilch user serviceable parts, glued in battery, soldered memory, funky SSD, new screws that require special tools just to open the darn thing, no space for a second hard drive or SSD. So basically a disposable MBP for close to $3000 in a halfway workable configuration. Once photoshop or an audio application has busted the SSD by using it as a scratch disk you can toss it out. Or at least it seems that's what you're supposed to do.

To me this looks like another shiny Apple designer gadget for pretty people at Starbucks surfing the web. I hope enough people still prefer the more traditional approach of the updated "regular" 15" non-retina MBP.

So I'm torn now if I should even go with Apple for the desktop and invest heavily just to find out later that the laptop choices are not for me.


----------



## deathbyfish (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm going to pick one of these up when I am in Hong Kong this summer, the prices are incredibly cheap there! I've already found someone to purchase my late 2011 macbook pro, only had it for 6 months but this update seriously looks brilliant. I'm heading to an apple store this weekend to see it myself.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jun 14, 2012)

Looks nice and I am thinking of getting one to replace my iMac 27. I'd add a cinema display.

What bugs me is why this can't have the same G3/4 internet service as the iPads have. This would make a laptop so much more useful. Of course you can add an iPhone and various USB dongles, but that is not the solution I am looking for.


----------



## bchernicoff (Jun 14, 2012)

Wilmark said:


> Have you seen a desktop with 4 quad core xeons or opterons with over 100 GB ram. Or a gaming i7 with nitrogen cooling or fan the size of a bowling ball, running at 4.5 GHz, or 4 full sized video cards. With a 1200W power supply??



What's your point? Both are specialized machines...one is optimized for server workloads and the other to give boners to nerds. While laptops aren't quite a match for high-end consumer desktops, the gap probably isn't significant for the majority of this forums users' needs. Yes, my Core i7 iMac has a faster processor than my Core i7 MBP, but the MPB has an SSD (both of have 8gb of RAM) and it handles all my RAW imports and photo editing much faster. Sure, the iMac would be faster still with an SSD, but my real point is that for the majority of this forum's workload, the difference isn't all that great and depends more on I/O speed than anything else.


----------



## samueljay (Jun 14, 2012)

Wilmark said:


> samueljay said:
> 
> 
> > ... and as such, the Laptops have actually surpassed / matched the desktops in specs.. so it makes the decision a lot harder.
> ...


Yes I have actually, I work on a $10,000 12 core Mac Pro at work, but I'm not a fan because for most tasks my 15" MBP is faster. You missed my point, maybe you should re-read my initial post which you (mis)quoted, I was never talking about PC's, I was speaking about Apple's lineup exclusively, and in particular, the Macbook Pro and the iMac (as stated in my initial post), as they are my two choices, as such, while some of the specs haven't exactly surpassed it (processors are still better in the iMac) you can get a bigger SSD in the new MBP, and the RAM in the new MBP is much better as the iMacs haven't been updated in a while now. Also, in case you didn't know, the iMac in fact uses Laptop components, so your argument is false.

Edit: Thank you bchernicoff, exactly what I'm talking about.


----------

