I'm wondering if I should get a mid-range 13" MBPr configured to 16GB of RAM ($1699) or a standard high-end 13" MBPr ($1799, 8GB of RAM).
Which would be the better proposition in terms of longevity and some light gaming?
I could manage with 256GB. I've used about 198GB of space in my current MacBook.16gb RAM > 256gb extra ssd space IMO. But it really depends on how much storage you really need.
But would a 0.2 GHz increase have a significant impact? I can live with lower storage space.Unless you have some specific use-case requiring 16GB of RAM (in a laptop??) I would go for the latter.
Unless you have some specific use-case requiring 16GB of RAM (in a laptop??) I would go for the latter.
Is this the first time in awhile that Apple has announced something only as coming really soon but no date? Kinda weird it's only a few weeks away and they didn't announce a date for the Mini.
OS X has a bad habit of sucking down memory. Anyone who's bought a mac in the last decade knows to load it with as much RAM as you can afford.
I wouldn't call it sucking down memory as it is actually utilizing every byte properly.
I'm confused, A7 just brought the iPhone to iPad 4 graphics levels with the A6X (a6X had double the GPU resources of the A6, thus the same-ish performance as the A7 which was also doubling A6 GPU performance), but they're saying the same A7 doubled it from the iPad 4...? Yet it's not an A7X?
Both claims can't be true. Unless they doubled performance without calling it an X series, or if the new claim takes different metrics, Apple themselves also claimed the A7 was double the A6 during the 5S announcement, so now turning around and saying it's also double the performance of the A6X is a bit underhanded.
If it's the same old A7, that's less performance at hand per pixel than the iPhone 5S, seeing as they have a lot more pixels to push in retina iPads.
And if the clock is higher, where would the Mini fall?
Caching is fine, it makes Windows feel great. But Lion and ML just didn't do well without a lot of memory. 8.1, 8, and 7 all ran ok on a measly 2GB, ML was a slideshow on the same machine. Not sure how Mavericks is yet, but the ram compression is interesting.
And if the clock is higher, where would the Mini fall?
I could manage with 256GB. I've used about 198GB of space in my current MacBook.
But would a 0.2 GHz increase have a significant impact? I can live with lower storage space.
I'm also thinking how 8GB of RAM would hold up in the years to come. This is a laptop I'll probably use for at least three years.
256 and 512.Hm maybe I'm confused, how much SSD space do the configs you're talking about come with? I thought it was 128 and 256.
Hehehe
"The Black Knight"
That was funny.
Only a good option if you're looking for the cheapest retina Macbook possible.You pay $1299 for the rPro 13 and you only get a 128gb SSD and 4gb of ram? What is up with that shit?
I've never followed Apple products too much other than owning an iPhone, but the Mac Pro seems like the biggest waste of money I've ever seen. I cannot find a full spec table but from what I've read the specs seem very standard and less than my current PC which I built for under $2000. I mean are they REALLY shipping it with a 256GB SSD and nothing else for storage? Am I missing something here??
Only a good option if you're looking for the cheapest retina Macbook possible.
The $1499 version is a much better buy with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM. Or, add 4GB of ram to the base model and pay $1399, still not bad. Poor people that get the base model in stores and are stuck with 4GB forever.
Is it not possible to upgrade your own ram later in these retina MacBooks?
Only a good option if you're looking for the cheapest retina Macbook possible.
The $1499 version is a much better buy with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM. Or, add 4GB of ram to the base model and pay $1399, still not bad. Poor people that get the base model in stores and are stuck with 4GB forever.
So at the end of the day, the Mac Pro (especially in the configurations with more cores) will be an amazing machine, and if you spec out a similar PC built by hand on newegg, you'll likely come up with a price around $2,550, but you can't even get some of the features like the single fan case design, unique power saving design, and the 6 thunderbolt ports (!!!!). So to say you're getting those things, plus a warranty, plus easy access to OSX, and it is put together by a professional (in america, no less) for just an additional $450 and it's not so bad a deal. That's really probably similar to the markup you'd see from any other vendor like Dell or whoever.
How easy is it to get the iPad Air on the 1st of November without ordering and just walking in the store?
Most people have never walked into the store on November 1st and bought an iPad Air, so it is kind of hard to say.
If it is going to be your main computer and doing video editing then it is no brainer to go for 15inch MBPr because you want quad core core i7.Torn between the $1499 13" rMBP and the 15" $1999 rMBP. Going to be my main machine and the heaviest stuff it will do is some Adobe Premiere editing.
I think I will give the 13" a shot and see how it handles video encoding with the i5.
Torn between the $1499 13" rMBP and the 15" $1999 rMBP. Going to be my main machine and the heaviest stuff it will do is some Adobe Premiere editing.
I think I will give the 13" a shot and see how it handles video encoding with the i5.
You know what I meant. Judging by the release of the iPad 3 and 4.
get the quad core and bigger screen. you will notice it for video editing and compressing.
If it is going to be your main computer and doing video editing then it is no brainer to go for 15inch MBPr because you want quad core core i7.
I can't imagine why anyone would want the iPad Air. The Mini has the same specs, with a much higher pixel density.
The fact that they still have the iPad 2 in the store and the iPad 4 as a refurb really leads me to believe no firmly that they made a mistake in pushing out iPad 3 and knew it would perform badly as it did.
iPad 2 had no retina and performed well on its own due to its resolution.
iPad 3 essentially had the iPhone 4S chip slightly upped but the resolution was a lot more than the iPhone 4S supported. I bought the iPad 3 and saw the deterioration in performance wtih every OS release. So much so that my fathers iPad 2 performed better on 6.1.x than iPad 3 did because of the retina screen.
My suspicions were confirmed when they released an iPad 4 in the same year as iPad 3 and just renamed it The New iPad to offset people. THAT iPad was what iPad 3 should have been in the first place with a GPU and CPU fast enough to handle that resolution. the iPad 4 was now performing fluidly like the iPad 2 while the iPad 3 struggled.
The iPad 3 that I owned would struggle opening tabs on browser, get stuck on the browser opening heavy pages. animations would stutter, it would get considerably over heated compared to BOTH the iPad 2 and iPad 4.
As a consumer I feel duped and did not buy the iPad 4 as a result and will not buy the Air until I know for sure the Air is not just the 'lite' version of iPad like Macbook Air until they release a pro version next year. I won't pay $599 for 32 gb to be duped again.
another thing which is ridiculous that the iPad 2 new is $399 while an iPad 4 refurb (by Apple mind you) is $379...what?!
The "New iPad" was the iPad 3.
see I feel so duped that confused me too. still doesn't detract from the fact of iPad 2 vs 3 vs 4 performance and the fact that the new NEW iPad was released within 10 months of each other.
came out 6 months later
New to mac operating systems....do you think 8 gigs of ram will be enough for the 13 inch retina to run smoothly for 3 years? Or should I just drop 200 more for 16 gigs...
I'm not really a power user.
The fact that they still have the iPad 2 in the store and the iPad 4 as a refurb really leads me to believe no firmly that they made a mistake in pushing out iPad 3 and knew it would perform badly as it did.
iPad 2 had no retina and performed well on its own due to its resolution.
iPad 3 essentially had the iPhone 4S chip slightly upped but the resolution was a lot more than the iPhone 4S supported. I bought the iPad 3 and saw the deterioration in performance wtih every OS update. So much so that my fathers iPad 2 performed better on 6.1.x than iPad 3 did because of the retina screen.
My suspicions were confirmed when they released an iPad 4 in the same year as iPad 3 and just renamed it The New iPad to offset people. THAT iPad was what iPad 3 should have been in the first place with a GPU and CPU fast enough to handle that resolution. the iPad 4 was now performing fluidly like the iPad 2 while the iPad 3 struggled.
The iPad 3 that I owned would struggle opening tabs on browser, get stuck on the browser opening heavy pages. animations would stutter, it would get considerably over heated compared to BOTH the iPad 2 and iPad 4.
As a consumer I feel duped and did not buy the iPad 4 as a result and will not buy the Air until I know for sure the Air is not just the 'lite' version of iPad like Macbook Air until they release a pro version next year. I won't pay $599 for 32 gb to be duped again.
another thing which is ridiculous that the iPad 2 new is $399 while an iPad 4 refurb (by Apple mind you) is $379...what?!
New to mac operating systems....do you think 8 gigs of ram will be enough for the 13 inch retina to run smoothly for 3 years? Or should I just drop 200 more for 16 gigs...
I'm not really a power user.