Old or new Macbook Pro?

[Sack]

Hi, so I've decided to buy a MBP, but should I get the new smooth retina edition or the older non-retina version? I'm getting a 13" model, the new one has soldered drive and memory, and the old one does not. The pros of the new one is retina screen, newer processor, better battery and really fast ssd that is PCI-based (I think). The old one however has no soldered HDD or memory, so if I wanted I could in theory swap the RAM and HDD out should I ever need to. So what do you people think?

[79wjd]

Retina. 1440x900 is a crap resolution. 

 

Also, the pcie ssd isn't soldered down. And theres virtually no need to swap out RAM, assuming you get enough to start off with...so, retina. 

[Sauron]

Why do you need it?

[Sack]

Retina. 1440x900 is a crap resolution. 

 

Also, the pcie ssd isn't soldered down (at least I don't think it is). And theres virtually no need to swap out RAM, assuming you get enough to start off with...so, retina. 

My bad, it would seem it's some kind of M.2 interface, and not soldered.

[Hans Christian | Teri]

If you've got the cash you should definitely go for the Retina version. The screen is absolutely fantastic and it's pretty much half the thickness of the "regular". The SSD is not soldered down, this is a myth.

[Glenwing]

It's a proprietary M.2 interface.

 

1440x900 isn't that bad at that size in my opinion.  The retina display (2560x1600) will operate as a 1280x800 display anyway as far as desktop space goes, although of course you will get the nice sharp text and all that.

[Sack]

Why do you need it?

It will be for uni-stuff, dragging around all over the place, working at very small desks, etc. nothing too serious.

[79wjd]

It's a proprietary M.2 interface.

 

1440x900 isn't that bad at that size in my opinion.  The retina display (2560x1600) will operate as a 1280x800 display anyway as far as desktop space goes, although of course you will get the nice sharp text and all that.

You can also scale it up to 1920x1200 in the OS itself, and then by using switch res x you can push it all the way to 2880x1800. 

[Glenwing]

You can also scale it up to 1920x1200 in the OS itself, and then by using switch res x you can push it all the way to 2880x1800. 

 

True.  I was thinking it is preferable to keep it at one of the native resolutions (i.e. half in each direction), but I guess when the pixel density is high enough it probably wouldn't matter if you were using a non-native resolution or not.

[79wjd]

True.  I was thinking it is preferable to keep it at one of the native resolutions (i.e. half in each direction), but I guess when the pixel density is high enough it probably wouldn't matter if you were using a non-native resolution or not.

well, 1920x1200 looks perfect since its the same 16:10 resolution. 

[Sauron]

It will be for uni-stuff, dragging around all over the place, working at very small desks, etc. nothing too serious.

 

Then may I ask why you want an mbp? There are options that have better value for that kind of use.

[Sack]

Then may I ask why you want an mbp? There are options that have better value for that kind of use.

Recommendations from friends and family, and I've seen how well they age. With a normal windows laptop, I want to throw it though the wall within a year or so.

[Bogica]

Sounds to me like you are buying an overkill machine for basic tasks. I'm not going to say you are buying a 2000$ facebook machine, but you are buying a 2000$ machine for tasks a 300$ laptop could complete. But it is you cash, so I'm just saying you might not need an i5/i7 with that screen for those tasks.

[Glenwing]

well, 1920x1200 looks perfect since its the same 16:10 resolution. 

 

It's not just about aspect ratio, if you feed an image that is 1200 pixels tall to a 1600 pixel-tall screen, it will have to be changed in some way to be displayed on that panel, it can't be done pixel-for-pixel because it doesn't divide evenly.  Whereas an 800 pixel-tall image can simply have every pixel represented by exactly two pixels on the screen (and the same in the horizontal direction), so the image can still be displayed exactly as received even though the resolution is different from the physical resolution.  Other non-native resolutions don't have this advantage, which is what results in blurring when running at a non-native resolution.

[Bogica]

Recommendations from friends and family, and I've seen how well they age. With a normal windows laptop, I want to throw it though the wall within a year or so.

Keep it updated, don't download crap (viruses) and keep it clean (use some maintenance software) and you will be perfectly fine for several years with a 350$ laptop.

[79wjd]

It's not just about aspect ratio, if you feed an image that is 1200 pixels tall to a 1600 pixel-tall screen, it will have to be changed in some way to be displayed on that panel, it can't be done pixel-for-pixel because it doesn't divide evenly.  Whereas an 800 pixel-tall image can simply have every pixel represented by exactly two pixels on the screen (and the same in the horizontal direction), so the image can still be displayed exactly as received even though the resolution is different from the physical resolution.  Other non-native resolutions don't have this advantage, which is what results in blurring when running at a non-native resolution.

Well, all I can say is my rMBP is at 1920x1200 when its 2880x1800 natively. So, maybe its just the pixel density then. Anyway...Apple gives you five options: "Larger text, in-between, Best (Retina), in-between, more space. At more space you're at 1920x1200. So presumably, the "more space" option on the 13" will perfect -- i doubt Apple would provide an option that makes the screen look bad.

[Glenwing]

Recommendations from friends and family, and I've seen how well they age. With a normal windows laptop, I want to throw it though the wall within a year or so.

 

Well, if you spend that much I'd hope you get good quality I still have my ThinkPad T61 from 2007-ish which still looks the same as when I got it. You can get a long-lasting machine from either side if you have a high budget.  That being said, MBPs still make for very solid Windows laptops they are great machines, so if you like it I don't think it's a bad option at all.

[Sack]

Keep it updated, don't download crap (viruses) and keep it clean (use some maintenance software) and you will be perfectly fine for several years with a 350$ laptop.

I am very perticular with my machines, I keep them nice and clean, but the laptops has always let me down after 1-1.5 years. So I figured I'd try something new, I did order one the last time I got a laptop, but it was faulty so I sent it back, and I was going in to some heavy computer science study at the time, so I figured why not just play it safe this time.

[Sauron]

Recommendations from friends and family, and I've seen how well they age. With a normal windows laptop, I want to throw it though the wall within a year or so.

 

Routine maintenance (or using ubuntu) can get rid of any problems on a non-mac laptop. Apple gets a lot of undeserved hype, unless you need something specific from the mbp you'd spare a lot of money going with something else instead.

[Sack]

Since my only worry was the "soldered" ssd, I've decided on the retina version, thanks everyone

[Glenwing]

Since my only worry was the "soldered" ssd, I've decided on the retina version, thanks everyone

 

It's still a proprietary interface, so it might as well be soldered.  You can't replace it with an off-the-shelf part.

[79wjd]

It's still a proprietary interface, so it might as well be soldered.  You can't replace it with an off-the-shelf part.

It can still be replaced however should the need arise. 

[Bogica]

I am very perticular with my machines, I keep them nice and clean, but the laptops has always let me down after 1-1.5 years. So I figured I'd try something new, I did order one the last time I got a laptop, but it was faulty so I sent it back, and I was going in to some heavy computer science study at the time, so I figured why not just play it safe this time.

Well I guess that's just bad luck I still have a laptop from 2005 that runs perfectly fine, just did maintenance such as replacing thermal paste, added more ram so it has 2.5Gb now and it's running alright. But I see your point, I had more problems with a laptop I bought 2 years ago than I had with the one from 2005.

[koreandude]

Most of the anti-Apple portable hate comes from outdated information.

 

Try finding an ultrabook-thickness machine with a QHD IPS display, i7-4700HQ or better, NVIDIA GT 750M or better, PCIe SSD, and 8-10 hour battery life. They're all 1) slower or 2) bigger, heavier, thicker, and have shorter battery longevity.

 

As for price, they're pretty comparable.

[79wjd]

Most of the anti-Apple portable hate comes from outdated information.

 

Try finding an ultrabook-thickness machine with a QHD IPS display, i7-4700HQ or better, NVIDIA GT 750M or better, PCIe SSD, and 8-10 hour battery life. They're all 1) slower or 2) bigger, heavier, thicker, and have shorter battery longevity.

 

As for price, they're pretty comparable.

Not to mention they tend to last longer. My old mac lasted my 7 years, and still running perfectly--just too slow especially consider that I usually have at least 5 tabs open, a long with iTunes, VLC, iMessage, occasionally cs6, and whatever else I happen to be doing. But, for just internet browsing or music/video playback its still excellent. 

 

On a side note, most laptop companies have awful trackpads, so I'd consider buying a mac simply for the better trackpad. 

 

But anyway....spec for spec macs are still more expensive than similarly spec'd windows-based laptops. But thats really not a fair comparison as a mac with identical specs to a windows-based system will outperform the windows computer, and there are other parts other than simple specs--build quality/etc...