Anyone getting a retina macbook?

[Schy]

Ah! The 3tb and 1tb might be a good option! Thanks for that! Can you daisy chain them as well? Hehe!

Now im debating whether to get 8gb ram or order 16gb ram as some retailers are offering 10% off their apple computers but for the base models only and are not allowing for customised ones.. Haha!

8gb would be enough for me? Am not really techie.. I just use the computer.. Haha

[MissionMan]

I don't think you'll need 16GB but as I said, its more about future proofing. I personally doubt that 16GB will be the minimum requirements for any software in the near future unless its hectic video editing.

It doesn't look like Lacie do a bigger drive than 2GB so you may have to look at other brands for that. I use the WD MyBook (I only have firewire but will move to a thunderbolt device later) which is quite a nice chrome style. They also do a thunderbolt but only in 4GB and 6GB.

This is what daisy chaining looks like (from Lacie but the drive make has no dependency, it would work this way with any thunderbolt drive). The nice thing this graphic shows is that you can buy an external thunderbolt compatible 24 inch monitor, plug your drives into the monitor and you only have one connection for both your drives and external display.



This is the dual ports I was referring to on the back. This allows you to connect the drives together.



If you look at the WD thunderbolt version, it also has two ports so its a standard way of working with thunderbolt.

[Schy]

Thanks a lot missionman! Helped me a lot!

Im pretty sure lacie has the 6tb and 4tb as i saw it in apples website.. Hehe! But western digital is the cheaper option!

I might get the 4tb and 2tb and go with your suggestion with the 3 and 1tb.. Use the money saved to purchase the external storage..

[farmer_rob]

Re 8 vs 16 gb. I went for 16 gb. The 16gb is total overkill, but the memory is not upgradeable later. For the cost, it was worth the future-proofing. But i have yet to really torture the memory limits in spite of trying hard.

I was also a bit worried about the 256 gbyte ssd size. However I think it is enough for a portable machine. Thanks to all for the advice regarding other storage options - i'll be looking into some of this soon.

Btw, i think the retina macbook is great. Well worth the money.

Regards,
Rob

[Ventureoverland]

Re 8 vs 16 gb. I went for 16 gb. The 16gb is total overkill, but the memory is not upgradeable later. For the cost, it was worth the future-proofing. But i have yet to really torture the memory limits in spite of trying hard.

I was also a bit worried about the 256 gbyte ssd size. However I think it is enough for a portable machine. Thanks to all for the advice regarding other storage options - i'll be looking into some of this soon.

Btw, i think the retina macbook is great. Well worth the money.

Regards,
Rob

I don't think the 16gb is total overkill.

I have 12gb in my 2010 quad core i7 iMac and use aperture 3 & CS5. A good mate of mine has just bought a 2012 quad core i7 MacBook pro (non retina) with 8gb ram. He has a slightly faster processor than me but if you start doing the same thing on both machines, mine still has the edge on memory hungry tasks.

Bottom line, id say you made the right call in going down the 16gb route.

R
J

Sent using Forum Runner

[MissionMan]

I don't think the 16gb is total overkill.

I have 12gb in my 2010 quad core i7 iMac and use aperture 3 & CS5. A good mate of mine has just bought a 2012 quad core i7 MacBook pro (non retina) with 8gb ram. He has a slightly faster processor than me but if you start doing the same thing on both machines, mine still has the edge on memory hungry tasks.

Bottom line, id say you made the right call in going down the 16gb route.

R
J

Sent using Forum Runner

Just remember there is a big difference between desktop and mobile processors. An iMac should always be faster than the laptap equivalent. Mobile processors have to run under power constraints for battery life, heat constraints etc.

[Ventureoverland]

Just remember there is a big difference between desktop and mobile processors. An iMac should always be faster than the laptap equivalent. Mobile processors have to run under power constraints for battery life, heat constraints etc.

Interesting and that would go a long way to explain my experiences...

Are you saying that, for example, a "2.6Ghz quad core i7" in an iMac is different to a "2.6Ghz quad core i7" in a MacBook pro?

I know there are mobile intel processors out there and commonly used for PC laptops, i'd need to check the apple website but can't recall them detailing one being a mobile processor...

Thx
J

Sent using Forum Runner

[Ventureoverland]

Interesting and that would go a long way to explain my experiences...

Are you saying that, for example, a "2.6Ghz quad core i7" in an iMac is different to a "2.6Ghz quad core i7" in a MacBook pro?

I know there are mobile intel processors out there and commonly used for PC laptops, i'd need to check the apple website but can't recall them detailing one being a mobile processor...

Thx
J

Sent using Forum Runner

Ok, just had a look on the apple store, the following screenshots detail the processors for a current iMac and MacBook pro.

MacBook pro first, then iMac. Both use the same quad core i7 logo and does not specifically detail mobile processors.

Having said that, my mates MacBook has a 5400rpm drive, mines a 7200rpm that only goes part way to explain the differences that are apparent.

Next time in in the city I'll pop into the apple store and ask a 'Genius'

Sent using Forum Runner

[MissionMan]

Ok, just had a look on the apple store, the following screenshots detail the processors for a current iMac and MacBook pro.

MacBook pro first, then iMac. Both use the same quad core i7 logo and does not specifically detail mobile processors.

Having said that, my mates MacBook has a 5400rpm drive, mines a 7200rpm that only goes part way to explain the differences that are apparent.

Next time in in the city I'll pop into the apple store and ask a 'Genius'

Sent using Forum Runner

Yup. The short answer is yes. If you have the same speed, the desktop processor will always be slightly faster. This is largely due to a number of factors like those mentioned above (power consumption, better graphics card etc), but there are other considerations like amount of memory for shared L3 cache on the processor (I think the notebooks have 6MB vs 8MB on the desktops)

Hard drives do make a difference as well obviously.

[JM Tran]

I am peeved that Apple quietly murdered the 17" MBP. I have had 2 of them now, and would without doubt keep upgrading if the 17" continued in the line-up. I don't want a 15" version, I want true screen real estate, not smaller items that appear to allow more on the desktop. I also don't want smaller storage capacity, although SSD is nice, the cost in capacity by using them is frustrating, i would rather a SATA drive with greater than 1TB, or 2x SATA drives.
No optical drive is another feature I wouldn't want to omit, given I burn discs on the go at times, and just because Apple wants all software going onto the machine from their Mac App Store, many others still distribute via disc, and it is useful for watching movies or sharing files too large to email.

All in all, I have no reason to go for the new MBP, and god forbid, if they don't release a 17" Retina version, I may be forced back to a Windows machine, which will really peeve me! Apple have really changed their game plan, catering more for the masses, instead of the professional and enthusiast markets they have typically built things for in the past.
Mr Cook won't be getting my $$ anytime soon without a 17" version.

I remembered commenting in the past on your decision to purchase the 17 inch MBP Wayne, and also questioned your need to upgrade every time Apple releases a new MBP - as the upgrades are quite incremental and not that much of a sound business decision.

The 17 inch has and never will be a popular choice with professionals in photography, music and other professions due to its size, my professional colleagues and I would never edit seriously on a 17 inch, nor would a sports shooter or DJ want all that room and size taken up next to them. The 15 incher which I have - and which is the leading model will always be the perfect fit for us - not too small, and big enough to carry in a lot of backpacks and satchel bags etc.

You also commented that you bought the MBP back then for the new Thunderbolt connection - when I thought that it is still in its infancy and will be slow to catch on. To this day it is still not widespread enough and it is still very expensive for Thunderbolt products.

Your complaint about SSD - I bought the 1st generation SSD for the MBP - at a paltry 128GB two years ago, I still dont complain about the capacity, as all of my photo work are kept on separate back up drives and loaded onto the SSD for editing, then deleted again later. This is what myself and other pros do for speed and effiency of utilizing the SSD. Now with the new MBPs at 512GB, thats a bargain I reckon! So why should we go back to something slower like a normal HDD even if its SATA?

The only thing I would agree with you on is the lack of optical drive, as I burn a lot of discs for clients too. But lately - I have been using Dropbox to send files to clients now - saves us time altogether and no need to mail it or drive to the office to meet etc. I can also just buy the separate optical drive when I upgrade to the new MBP soon. I am always open to adapting to changes instead of resisting.

[MissionMan]

The only thing I would agree with you on is the lack of optical drive, as I burn a lot of discs for clients too. But lately - I have been using Dropbox to send files to clients now - saves us time altogether and no need to mail it or drive to the office to meet etc. I can also just buy the separate optical drive when I upgrade to the new MBP soon. I am always open to adapting to changes instead of resisting.

I still think CD's and DVD's are a dying breed. You can pick up bulk 1,2 and 4GB memory sticks for under $5 each so its almost worth just using those because its only a couple of bucks more than a CD or DVD. You can buy them in bulk off ebay and its quicker to write to memory stick than CD, not to mention the issues with failed writes etc.

I also think long term that thunderbolt will be good, I think its just early days. The fact that you can have one connection going to your laptop which includes your monitor and a number of externals is great.