|
Bob Morales posted:Take the base model 15" Pro up to 8GB, 256GB SSD, and the high-res screen = $2,499 Jesus this is crazy. I suppose they want to wean people off the old style.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
Lexicon posted:Jesus this is crazy. I suppose they want to wean people off the old style. I'm still getting the old style because I can upgrade it myself for cheap whereas with the other one I'm stuck forever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
terriyaki posted:As time goes on will I be able to buy a Thunderbolt - FW800 cable from places like Monoprice? japtor posted:Well it's possible in the sense that they could build a cable with the dongle guts built in, but otherwise no, a simple cable with FW on one side and TB on the other isn't possible. At minimum there needs to be some electronics in there cause they're completely different. Hmm, really? But then why is it possible to buy Thunderbolt-HDMI and Thunderbolt-DVI one piece cables? Sorry, not trying to be argumentative or anything like that. I'm just really anti-dongle, heh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
terriyaki posted:Hmm, really? But then why is it possible to buy Thunderbolt-HDMI and Thunderbolt-DVI one piece cables? What is a dongle but a very short cable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
terriyaki posted:Hmm, really? But then why is it possible to buy Thunderbolt-HDMI and Thunderbolt-DVI one piece cables? Aren't those just display port cables anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 03:04
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:What is a dongle but a very short cable? A very short extra cable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
hamza posted:E: Also, don't know if it's true or not, but I was also told that the same algorithm that websites use to determine if your credit card number is a possible Visa/MC/AmEx whatever can also be used to generate a random CC number that may or may not be assigned to an actual card. Generating "valid" CC numbers is easy, yes. Back in the early days of AOL my junior high friends and I used number generators to get endless
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
Got to play with a Retina Display today at the Fifth Avenue Cube, apologies if some items have been brought up before.. Yes, it is absolutely beautiful. I would watch blu-rays on this thing, it's already got the USB 3.0. Tested out a Patriot Supersonic USB 3.0 flash drive (under the supervision of a blue shirt) and man alive, it was fast! Of course, CPU usage spiked up, but not too much.. For some reason Apple leaves this out on the spec pages for both Retina and non-Retina MBPs, but the Intel HD 4000 integrated chip takes up a whopping 512 MB of RAM on the Retina. It actually also held up pretty well, tried spinning around four 3D demo windows in Grapher, played the Avengers final featurette at 1080 resolution, scrolled around in TextEdit with some 96 pt fonts, and still no slowdown. Yes, you definitely cannot fit a USB device into the MagSafe 2 port.  Magsafe 2 doesn't seem to grip as well as old Magsafe, probably because the area the rare earth magnets have to grab is reduced. Crazy how you the old resolutions list is gone in the Display prefpanel.. you only get five choices, and it says "looks like 1300 * 800" or something like that. Moved around a lot of windows with graphics in them, didn't see any fluttering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 05:34
|
|
|
All the recent reviews have basically assured me I want the retina MBP... a little bit down the line when everything's more fully baked. This might be a dumb question, but in regards to apps being updated to support larger resolutions: Okay, so text scaling will be upgraded and rendered text will be incredibly sharp (good example on Engadget with Chrome earlier today) and gorgeous, but won't images on websites still look like poo poo, since they will be blown up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
hedgecore posted:All the recent reviews have basically assured me I want the retina MBP... a little bit down the line when everything's more fully baked. This might be a dumb question, but in regards to apps being updated to support larger resolutions: Depending on the size of the image; if the image is full size on the page, then yes, but I think this, combined with all the mobile browsers that zoom and scale so much, more web designers will start including larger images and changing the displayed size in code, so they retain fidelity when scaled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
carry on then posted:Depending on the size of the image; if the image is full size on the page, then yes, but I think this, combined with all the mobile browsers that zoom and scale so much, more web designers will start including larger images and changing the displayed size in code, so they retain fidelity when scaled. Boo. I was afraid this was the answer. I am a web designer/developer, and I can assure you we spend so much time dealing with legacy support for small screen resolutions that I can't even imagine requesting high res assets for web. http://browsersize.googlelabs.com/ is a good example if you want to see just how bad it is. Catering for a screen that's 960px wide at most is one of the few common practices that does exist. And it's really awful practice to load in a huge image and scale it appropriately to the browser window size. It's not AS big a deal for mobile devices, since the images would already be served at that size to a desktop (it's primarily a bummer for the end user, as they are hosing more already limited bandwidth than necessary). However, the idea of serving even larger assets than normal to desktop browser users? That's going to take years to start shifting. I'm worried this might actually be a dealbreaker for me even as a casual user. I would love to hear some trip reports from people who notice the pixel perfect stuff as I don't think I'll be able to stop by and see one in person too soon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 05:54
|
|
|
hedgecore posted:Browser stuff Complaining that lovely websites aren't made for this computer is the same as complaining that the Walmart parking lot isn't ideal for a McLaren F1.  I really didn't buy this thing primarily for browsing, but to each their own. Besides, the usual sites I tend to go to didn't look bad at all to me. Send me up to 5 links and the resolutions you want to see (out of the ones that OS X supports on the MBPR), and I'll PM you screenshots or post them here if there's a way to make that not break tables. Mr. Smile Face Hat fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Jun 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
Digital Jesus posted:A very short extra cable. Yeah I don't see why they can't just make a longer dongle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 06:32
|
|
|
flavor posted:Send me up to 5 links and the resolutions you want to see (out of the ones that OS X supports on the MBPR), and I'll PM you screenshots or post them here if there's a way to make that not break tables. This would actually be really beneficial for wary buyers. Just show us what a scaled version of the forums looks like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 07:03
|
|
|
terriyaki posted:Hmm, really? But then why is it possible to buy Thunderbolt-HDMI and Thunderbolt-DVI one piece cables? It's a good question. Thunderbolt, essentially, is Displayport mixed together with PCI Express over one cable, so all you need to connect a Thunderbolt port to a Displayport one is a cable with a Thunderbolt jack on one side and a Displayport jack on the other side. Since HDMI and Displayport are also essentially (mostly) the same thing, the same is possible for Thunderbolt->Displayport. For simplicity's sake, you just ignore the PCI Express part of Thunderbolt protocol and bam, Displayport is right there. Firewire, though, is a totally different protocol. A Thunderbolt->FW adapter is basically like taking a Firewire PCIe card, shrinking it down, and putting a cable on both ends. It has to actually connect to the PCI bus as a device, via a Thunderbolt connection, and provide a Firewire connection out the other side. It's the same reason you can't make a Thunderbolt microphone cable, or fax modem cable, or...bat signal cable, or whatever. There is actual electronic stuff going on in there, which a TB->DP or TB->HDMI adapter doesn't need, because it's already built into Thunderbolt. Edit: If you're asking why they don't just make it longer and make both ends of the dongle male instead a short little stub thing with a female end though...yeah, I don't know. It would still need to have a chunky part in it to have space for the circuitry, but meh. penneydude fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Jun 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 07:08
|
|
|
I love my dongle. I play around with it at least 4 or 5 times a week.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 07:23
|
|
|
mdtyson posted:This would actually be really beneficial for wary buyers. Just show us what a scaled version of the forums looks like. The Migration Assistant has just slowly adjusted the estimate from "3 Minutes remaining" to "24 Minutes remaining", so while there's time: What image hosting site should I post it on? It'd be too big to just put up on SA itself. Sorry for the silly question, I just never had to worry about that here before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 07:25
|
|
|
flavor posted:The Migration Assistant has just adjusted the estimate from "3 Minutes remaining" to "24 Minutes remaining", so while there's time: What image hosting site should I post it on? It'd be too big to just put up on SA itself. Sorry for the silly question, I just never had to worry about that here before. imgur.com
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 07:26
|
|
|
Okay here they are: http://imgur.com/a/5ScIJ I don't know how representative of a typical experience they are, but so far all browsing has looked fine to me. The experience is kind of like with the iPad 3: Things look fantastic on the high resolution, but still good when it's not high. Oh and to add: These are the three higher resolutions, called "Like 1440x900", "Like 1680x1050" and "Like 1920x1200". E: Little aside: GTA San Andreas runs (fully playable) in 2880x1800, so to me that means applications are free to run at the full resolution, it's just not selectable as the desktop resolution (makes sense considering that even 1920x1200, which I'm running it now at, is pushing it for visibility). Mr. Smile Face Hat fucked around with this message at 08:41 on Jun 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
flavor posted:And don't get me started on having to sign the delivery for every single item from them, even it's some $20 adapter or something. One thing you can do about this is go to the order status page before the item is delivered. There should be a link to print out a delivery release authorization form or something. Print and sign and you can have the package left at the door.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 09:05
|
|
|
x-virge posted:One thing you can do about this is go to the order status page before the item is delivered. There should be a link to print out a delivery release authorization form or something. Print and sign and you can have the package left at the door. I know about that but I don't want to advertise to the public that I'll be getting some delivery soon. That should be possible to do online and it doesn't address the problem. They should just not ask for signatures for every single item, however cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 09:10
|
|
|
flavor posted:E: Little aside: GTA San Andreas runs (fully playable) in 2880x1800, so to me that means applications are free to run at the full resolution, it's just not selectable as the desktop resolution (makes sense considering that even 1920x1200, which I'm running it now at, is pushing it for visibility). I'm finding that a lot of applications need the 1920x1200 setting just so the interface isn't windows 95 huge. I've been benchmarking a bunch of DCC apps and the change in the scale settings have fairly minimal impact on the (mediocre) OpenGL performance. Right now the display is definitely way ahead of the GPU and software supporting it. the 1920x1200 setting is a good stop-gap to fix this until developers do. My game benchmark was Portal2, which also ran great at 2880x1800  I also realized I don't have any of the correct HDMI cables to actually connect to my monitors. I want to benchmark how much this resolution is affecting performance on OpenGL. I'm also surprised there have been no windows installs going on yet. I thought they'd be out there by tonight at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 10:02
|
|
|
It was slim pickings with the games because I haven't had a chance to get my Steam games copied over yet. Hm, might copy over and check out GLQuake to end the day on a nice retro touch. Yeah the GPU is good but not exceptional. It's not the focus of the machine. Windows feels like sacrilege on this. I'll probably install it, but on an external HDD. I have all I really need right now on OS X, but I agree that it'd be interesting to check out. It's strange that this thing has no Kensington slot. Maybe it's simply too thin and that's the reason the Airs don't either. e: Just noticed it's possible to get the 2880x1800 desktop on the cheap by sharing the screen of another MBP that's connected to a TB display (should of course also work with a 27" iMac, but haven't tried that yet). It opens up a 2560x1440 window. Fonts are tiny but readable, but seeing it I understand why they drew the line at 1920x1200. Mr. Smile Face Hat fucked around with this message at 11:50 on Jun 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 11:19
|
|
|
Someone posted this: (click for big) Basically iPad 2 vs new iPad
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 14:06
|
|
|
Why did they use two different pieces of software to demonstrate that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 14:24
|
|
|
hamza posted:Why did they use two different pieces of software to demonstrate that? Because Office won't render text at Retina, and TextEdit won't render text at non-Retina (that I know of). So it'd be pointless to put the same piece of software side by side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
New features with Office 2018: - Updated graphics and UI to integrate with Retina Display Macs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 15:05
|
|
|
Shin-chan posted:New features with Office 2018: Sorry, that's only available with Office 2018 Plus Pro Advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Someone posted this: So does this mean that anything that doesn't' support Apple's text rendering or retina graphics is going to be scaled up and look blurry as poo poo? Because I can go into Word right now and blow up some text 300% and it still looks crisp. And similar to retina display iOS Apps, does this mean that all programs are also going to be bloated with retina graphics even if my computer can't take advantage of them? I know it's not that big of an issue on a Mac because you have a huge hard drive, but I noticed App sizes increasing on iOS as the retina display support became possible. Astro7x fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Jun 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
So Amazon's inventory of the new MacBooks seem to be a mixed bag right now. I don't quite understand it... 11'' Air w/ 64GB HD - In Stock, Sold by Amazon, 2 left. 11" Air w/ 128GB HD - In Stock, Sold by J&R so not Prime Eligible. 13" Air w/ 128GB HD - Pre-order only, to be fulfilled by Amazon 13" Air w/ 256GB HD - Pre-order only, to be fulfilled by Amazon MBP:TNG - All models are "Temporarily Out of Stock" 13.3" Pro w/ 500GB HD - In Stock, Sold by J&R so not Prime Eligible. 13.3" Pro w/ 750GB HD - Pre-order only, to be fulfilled by Amazon 15.4" Pro w/ 500GB HD - Pre-order only, to be fulfilled by Amazon 15.4" Pro w/ 750GB HD - In Stock, Sold by J&R so not Prime Eligible. Just hoping my 13" 256GB Air doesn't take 1 month to arrive...
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
Astro7x posted:So does this mean that anything that doesn't' support Apple's text rendering or retina graphics is going to be scaled up and look blurry as poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
Just ordered my first Apple product ever. First thing I'm going to do when I get it is install Skyrim and plug an Xbox controller in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
Daric posted:Just ordered my first Apple product ever. Well slow down there, hoss- you're gonna have to install a Windows partition first... Question: After a year of waiting, I can't hold off much longer- I need a machine for video editing- mainly Adobe Premiere with some FCP on the side. Last August, I bought a 13" MBA to replace my ailing 2007 macbook. I was working in a completely non-video related field, needed a portable computer, and the Air has been nothing but wonderful to use. That said, it was always intended to be a stopgap or aside until I bought a more powerful desktop/desktop replacement rig. The 128gigs of memory are dwindling fast and I'm about ready to give Apple some more of my money. The idea over the last few months was to hold onto the MBA (or try to offload it on the used market, pick up a 2012 model, and simply eat the difference if the new ones were that much better- which is debatable but doesn't seem to be the case about anything other than getting more flash memory space and 8 gigs of RAM. Those aren't necessarily unworthy reasons, though. Or I could replace it with an iPad) for portable/personal computer stuff and pick up a 27" iMac and fill it with RAM. The other option was, of course, a Macbook Pro- but after a lot of deliberation, it seemed that an Air/iMac split would better serve my needs than a portable that tried to do both jobs. Following the glorious arrival of the MBPTNG, all of my preconceived ideas have been challenged. It seems like it would be the compromise I'd been waiting for- aside from the fact that the GPU/display setup seems a little bit anemic. Can anybody speak to that, or is it too early to really say? Is it reasonable to think that the GPU would have performance issues running Premiere/AfterEffects on the retina display, or am I being dumb? I'd want to wait until the next iMac refresh to be certain, assuming it comes within the next few months. The Mac Pro's never been an option that I could justifiably afford-especially given how old it is- and there's no way that I could wait for its purported second coming. So MBPTNG or iMac/Air? I'd probably end up spending about the same on either setup, if you factor in stuff like displays and peripherals needed to turn the MBP into a desktop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
Electric Bugaloo posted:Well slow down there, hoss- you're gonna have to install a Windows partition first... What would I need a Windows partition for?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
Daric posted:What would I need a Windows partition for? Because unless you're going to use the not-so-awesome OS X port of Skyrim (Ciderwrapper or Wineskin required) you're going to need Windows to run a windows game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
Digital_Jesus posted:Because unless you're going to use the not-so-awesome OS X port of Skyrim (Ciderwrapper or Wineskin required) you're going to need Windows to run a windows game. Ah, didn't realize that the port was so bad. I don't even know how to install a partition on a hard drive as I've never had to do it before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
Good thing bootcamp can do it for you!  Just run bootcamp and follow the prompts!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
Electric Bugaloo posted:I'd want to wait until the next iMac refresh to be certain, assuming it comes within the next few months. The Mac Pro's never been an option that I could justifiably afford-especially given how old it is- and there's no way that I could wait for its purported second coming. So MBPTNG or iMac/Air? I'd probably end up spending about the same on either setup, if you factor in stuff like displays and peripherals needed to turn the MBP into a desktop. If portable performance isn't important, I'd strongly consider an iMac, assuming it does update in a month or three. Maybe it'll be launched with Mountain Lion? For me, if an Air met my performance requirements in a portable, I'd be all over it because of how light and slim it is. But, it doesn't, so I'm raiding the couch cushions and picking up pennies off the street until i can afford the RMBPR-TNG. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
Digital_Jesus posted:Good thing bootcamp can do it for you! Will Bootcamp partition a hard drive with data already on it? Or will it wipe the whole thing clean when it partitions? It's been quite awhile since I did a partition, and last time I did I had to format the entire drive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
Astro7x posted:Will Bootcamp partition a hard drive with data already on it? Or will it wipe the whole thing clean when it partitions? It's been quite awhile since I did a partition, and last time I did I had to format the entire drive. it will partition a hard drive with data on it. I've never known it not to, but back when it first dropped I usually had to wipe because the drive was so fragmented it couldn't do it without a wipe, so a wipe ended up being necessary. I haven't had that problem in a while, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 18:51
|
|
