Get the iphone 5 over the 4S. the $100-150 premium is well worth it.
Wait till the next iPhone comes out, then get the iPhone 5. The iPhone 5 has had the biggest speed increase, has a stronger (and nicer design IMO) than the iPhone 4(S) and obviously has 4G. The next iPhone is most likely going to be a minor upgrade like the 4S so it would be much better to get the iPhone 5
I just got my my Macbook :v:
It's so beautiful!
Even with tax I still got like $150 off.
I'm a design student looking at getting a Macbook Pro. I use Creative Suite CS6 and usually have several programs open at once.
Would the basic 13" model suffice to run everything well? Or would the 15" with the better graphics card be a better option?
Screen size isn't really an issue as it's just for uni and will probably use my desktop at home.
[QUOTE=AshMan55;40128492]I'm a design student looking at getting a Macbook Pro. I use Creative Suite CS6 and usually have several programs open at once.
Would the basic 13" model suffice to run everything well? Or would the 15" with the better graphics card be a better option?
Screen size isn't really an issue as it's just for uni and will probably use my desktop at home.[/QUOTE]
Unless you need to do gaming, it's just fine!
However, if you want something a bit beefier, wait for Haswell.
[video=youtube;9np8QC69xYI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9np8QC69xYI[/video]
This one is probaly on the higher-end CPU's though.
Does anybodies iPhone 5 rattle when you tap the back near the camera?
my dads does, and it's annoying because when it vibrates it sounds even louder because of the rattling part
yo
looking at getting a 15" macbook pro w/matte screen
not going retina because it's still glossy as fuck
cost is £1,480 with student discount
am i worth waiting 6 more months before buying it i.e. is there a refresh on the horizon?
That's a judgment call, really. I still see people with C2D MBPs that are fine since they're just Facebook machines really. Down the line you might have issues with enterprise level software like Photoshop, but if you don't plan on doing a lot of that you'll be fine, and resale value is always a good point so when it is outdated you can recoup your losses more efficiently than if you had bought a comparable Windows machine.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;40131114]That's a judgment call, really. I still see people with C2D MBPs that are fine since they're just Facebook machines really. Down the line you might have issues with enterprise level software like Photoshop, but if you don't plan on doing a lot of that you'll be fine, and resale value is always a good point so when it is outdated you can recoup your losses more efficiently than if you had bought a comparable Windows machine.[/QUOTE]
shit, should have mentioned
i am gonna be using it at university as a video editing machine/graphics/photography and all that shit.
it will be my only machine and i have no space/money for an external display.
[editline]2nd April 2013[/editline]
and i have this annoying habit of working laptops to their death (which is mostly motherboard failure)
got a year and a half out my HP ProBook 4320s and about three years out a Lenovo N200.
power management on the mobo for the HP and graphics card on the N200.
Mmm. Well, I dunno if the new MBPs are even using Ivy Bridge yet, and Haswell seems to be more of a GPU increase than a CPU one. I think the new MBPs are Ivy Bridge though, I'd double check but I think you'll be fine for a good 3-4 years at least with a new one.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;40131233]Mmm. Well, I dunno if the new MBPs are even using Ivy Bridge yet, and Haswell seems to be more of a GPU increase than a CPU one. I think the new MBPs are Ivy Bridge though, I'd double check but I think you'll be fine for a good 3-4 years at least with a new one.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/11/stub-apple-unveils-new-macbook-pro-with-ivy-bridge-at-wwdc/[/url]
looks like it
Well if you're getting a new 15-inch non-Retina, the one on Apple's webiste looks beefy as hell. I'd say it'd tide you over for a long while.
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;40131190]shit, should have mentioned
i am gonna be using it at university as a video editing machine/graphics/photography and all that shit.
it will be my only machine and i have no space/money for an external display.
[editline]2nd April 2013[/editline]
and i have this annoying habit of working laptops to their death (which is mostly motherboard failure)
got a year and a half out my HP ProBook 4320s and about three years out a Lenovo N200.
power management on the mobo for the HP and graphics card on the N200.[/QUOTE]
If you're doing all that, why would you NOT get the retina? Just because it's glossy? The normal one is a downgrade with regards to the design as well as the display. I don't even know if it runs at 99% sRGB like the retina, which would be important to someone doing video editing and photography.
[QUOTE=Kaabii;40131699]If you're doing all that, why would you NOT get the retina? Just because it's glossy? The normal one is a downgrade with regards to the design as well as the display. I don't even know if it runs at 99% sRGB like the retina, which would be important to someone doing video editing and photography.[/QUOTE]
why the hell is the retina [I]so[/I] lifechanging?
glossy displays distort colour to a degree that i can't work with, plus being annoying as fuck in anywhere but dark rooms.
on the topic of colour gamut: [url]http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1432348[/url] the high res anti-glare outperforms it (on the 2011, not sure if they cheapened out the display for 2012)
would checking focus not be harder on a retina display because of the scaling software it runs?
If I plan on getting an iPhone soon, which would be the better choice? 5 or 4S?
I can get the iPhone 5 for $199. I know it has a bigger screen and 4G, but is there anything else? I really don't like the huge screen and people I know that have the 5 say it was made cheap and it just doesn't feel as good as the 4S.
I can get the 4S for $99, and I really like it a lot more even though it can only do 3G. I spend most of my time using WiFi so it wouldn't affect me too much. I like the 4S all around better than the 5. My girlfriend has a 4S and so I've played around on it and felt the phone, etc.
Would it be stupid to get the 4S if I don't really like the 5?
Decided I'm selling my 15" Retina MBP. Great laptop and all but I don't think it's for me. Absolutely spotless and completely scratch less. 2.5 year warranty left on it as well. What price roughly do you guys think I can get for it? It's the base model (July 2012).
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;40131910]why the hell is the retina [I]so[/I] lifechanging?
glossy displays distort colour to a degree that i can't work with, plus being annoying as fuck in anywhere but dark rooms.
on the topic of colour gamut: [url]http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1432348[/url] the high res anti-glare outperforms it (on the 2011, not sure if they cheapened out the display for 2012)
would checking focus not be harder on a retina display because of the scaling software it runs?[/QUOTE]
Retina is life changing, at least for me. I find normal displays low quality after using my iPhone for so long, it seems like Retina should be the norm
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;40131910]why the hell is the retina [I]so[/I] lifechanging?
glossy displays distort colour to a degree that i can't work with, plus being annoying as fuck in anywhere but dark rooms.
on the topic of colour gamut: [url]http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1432348[/url] the high res anti-glare outperforms it (on the 2011, not sure if they cheapened out the display for 2012)
would checking focus not be harder on a retina display because of the scaling software it runs?[/QUOTE]
OK first of all, unless you're printing your work, that gamut coverage is completely useless because we live in an sRGB world. 99% sRGB is basically perfect. It's not calibrated to be 100% AdobeRGB because it's not a laptop designed to only target people who like to make posters.
[url]http://blog.datacolor.com/cd-tobie-retina-display-macbook-pro-for-calibration-and-photography[/url]
It's exactly where it should be, and ahead of older macbooks with regards to how well it hits sRGB. The only issue would be for video, since it isn't NTSC, but the older one isn't either.
Second of all, a glossy display should distort color less than a matte one. There's less between what the panel is rendering and the viewer. You still have glass on both, but on a glossy display you get BETTER color because you don't have to go through an AG coating. This also improves sharpness significantly as AG coatings cause graininess.
[editline]2nd April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Akmeeda;40133318]Decided I'm selling my 15" Retina MBP. Great laptop and all but I don't think it's for me. Absolutely spotless and completely scratch less. 2.5 year warranty left on it as well. What price roughly do you guys think I can get for it? It's the base model (July 2012).[/QUOTE]
I really wouldn't know because if I remember correctly they bumped up the clockspeed a little while back. Still you'd get a fair amount, especially with that Applecare warranty.
[QUOTE=Kaabii;40133589]OK first of all, unless you're printing your work, that gamut coverage doesn't matter because we live in an sRGB world. 99% sRGB is basically perfect.
[url]http://blog.datacolor.com/cd-tobie-retina-display-macbook-pro-for-calibration-and-photography[/url]
Second of all, a glossy display should distort color less than a matte one. There's less between what the panel is rendering and the viewer. You still have glass on both, but on a glossy display you get BETTER color because you don't have to go through an AG coating. This also improves sharpness significantly as AG coatings cause graininess.[/QUOTE]
well sadly i will be printing my work so it does matter to me.
i won't still have glass on both because the anti-glare MacBook Pro has a silver bezel instead of the sheet of glass.
my last laptop had a matte coating, and i much prefered it to the glossy one before. i will be using it in places with a lot of harsh lighting, including outdoors and with fluorescent tubes.
as i care more about what's on my screen than the lighting behind me, the anti-glare seems the best option.
[editline]2nd April 2013[/editline]
also cost, a retina macbook pro is a hell of a lot more expensive and i ain't exactly minted.
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;40133773]well sadly i will be printing my work so it does matter to me.
i won't still have glass on both because the anti-glare MacBook Pro has a silver bezel instead of the sheet of glass.
my last laptop had a matte coating, and i much prefered it to the glossy one before. i will be using it in places with a lot of harsh lighting, including outdoors and with fluorescent tubes.
as i care more about what's on my screen than the lighting behind me, the anti-glare seems the best option.[/QUOTE]
Uh the anti glare macbook still has a glass display. You know, the piece of glass in front of the panel? Displays have some sort of cover glass or plastic.
Also if you're printing, the 2012 normal macbook is only slightly higher for AdobeRGB coverage and it's still low to the point that neither is visibly better and for people working with printing something like a Dell U3011 is required to have proper AdobeRGB coverage.
Anyway I'm just saying the display on the normal pro isn't even remotely as nice and if I gave you a retina for a month and then replaced it with a normal pro you would be very pissed off. It's also thicker and heavier since it doesn't use the same design as the new Retina ones. But if you really need the matte coating then it's a tradeoff you'll have to make.
of course, any really accurate work like colour grading would be done on a sony SDI monitor but i'd prefer the matte simply because it would be easier to work with, the other benefits are just there.
it's also 1650x1050 which is better than 1440x900
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;40133842]of course, any really accurate work like colour grading would be done on a sony SDI monitor but i'd prefer the matte simply because it would be easier to work with, the other benefits are just there.
it's also 1650x1050 which is better than 1440x900[/QUOTE]
Except the Retina can run at a mode with equivalent space up to 1680x1050, and with some software you can run it at 1x1 pixel mapping 2880x1800 although you'll never be able to read anything.
It actually renders at 3360x2100 and then downscales to the WQXGA panel.
[QUOTE=Kaabii;40133838]Uh the anti glare macbook still has a glass display. You know, the piece of glass in front of the panel? Displays have some sort of cover glass or plastic.[/quote]
at serious risk of sounding like an asshole, and i'm sorry, but you should have some idea of what you're talking about before lecturing me on it.
[IMG]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c326/CodeSamurai/DSC_0015.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Kaabii;40133838]Also if you're printing, the 2012 normal macbook is only slightly higher for AdobeRGB coverage and it's still low to the point that neither is visibly better and for people working with printing something like a Dell U3011 is required to have proper AdobeRGB coverage.[/QUOTE]
that is a fair enough point.
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;40133875]at serious risk of sounding like an asshole, and i'm sorry, but [b]you should have some idea of what you're talking about before lecturing me on it.[/b]
[/QUOTE]
Lol this is coming from the guy who said a glossy display has distorted colors and was comparing displays using AdobeRGB. If it's glass or plastic(oh and if you go up a couple posts I included plastic because I wasn't sure which it was so lol) it's still going through that and an AG layer, a glossy display will always have less loss of image quality. If you need the matte because of lighting beyond your control than go ahead, but the panel itself is simply of much worse quality.
[QUOTE=Kaabii;40133931]Lol this is coming from the guy who said a glossy display has distorted colors and was comparing displays using AdobeRGB. If it's glass or plastic(oh and if you go up a couple posts I included plastic because I wasn't sure which it was so lol) it's still going through that and an AG layer, a glossy display will always have less loss of image quality. If you need the matte because of lighting beyond your control than go ahead, but the panel itself is simply of much worse quality.[/QUOTE]
square go come down to glasgow we'll see how much you love your retina display then.
in all seriousness, glossy displays make the colours more vibrant and brighter and that just ain't for me. there is nothing coating the display beyond the AG layer, it seems like you're trying to say apple AG coated the display and whopped another layer of glass/plastic right on top.
it's the deeper blacks and the saturation on the glassy display that distort colours.
if matte is inferior, why are all professional displays (Sony LMD, LaCie, NEC Spectraview etc) all matte?
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;40134058]square go come down to glasgow we'll see how much you love your retina display then.
in all seriousness, glossy displays make the colours more vibrant and brighter and that just ain't for me. there is nothing coating the display beyond the AG layer, it seems like you're trying to say apple AG coated the display and whopped another layer of glass/plastic right on top.
it's the deeper blacks and the saturation on the glassy display that distort colours.
if matte is inferior, why are all professional displays (Sony LMD, LaCie, NEC Spectraview etc) all matte?[/QUOTE]
All of the cheapest displays are matte too, so that's a really invalid argument.
That doesn't affect his argument at all, though. He's saying the actual proffessional displays use matte, so it must mean something. Whether or not low range monitors do too is different, they do it because it's probably cheaper and easier to maintain. More expensive, higher quality monitors don't have to worry about the price really.
[QUOTE=PonceDeLeon;40133133]If I plan on getting an iPhone soon, which would be the better choice? 5 or 4S?
I can get the iPhone 5 for $199. I know it has a bigger screen and 4G, but is there anything else? I really don't like the huge screen and people I know that have the 5 say it was made cheap and it just doesn't feel as good as the 4S.
I can get the 4S for $99, and I really like it a lot more even though it can only do 3G. I spend most of my time using WiFi so it wouldn't affect me too much. I like the 4S all around better than the 5. My girlfriend has a 4S and so I've played around on it and felt the phone, etc.
Would it be stupid to get the 4S if I don't really like the 5?[/QUOTE]
The time is nearing for Apple to release whatever the hell they want in terms of new iPhone, so hold out until then and get the 5 when the price drops, feeder.
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;40134232]That doesn't affect his argument at all, though. He's saying the actual proffessional displays use matte, so it must mean something. Whether or not low range monitors do too is different, they do it because it's probably cheaper and easier to maintain. More expensive, higher quality monitors don't have to worry about the price really.[/QUOTE]
iMacs don't use matte, and they certainly do exist in the professional world. I'd imagine the biggest reason glossy isn't used is because it costs too much money to accommodate them by doing specialized lighting where it won't act like a giant mirror. That doesn't mean that they're not used because they're inferior, and in fact the lack of color dampening, lack of graininess, and greater contrast is something that would likely be welcomed if it worked in a typical setting.
[editline]2nd April 2013[/editline]
Like here are the facts.
Matte has one single advantage and that's that it doesn't reflect. Everything else is a downgrade, and no display scientist or professional would say the deeper blacks and saturation is somehow distorted or undesirable. The saturation statement is especially ridiculous because what matters is having the panel at 100% of the desired gamut. The layer atop that is just going to reduce that by some given amount, and a matte cover will do that more than a glossy one. Calling glossy displays oversaturated when they're at 99% sRGB is just blatantly wrong, there's no other way to describe it.
If you can't control your lighting, then yeah you'll probably need a matte display. I'm not discounting that, and in fact I agree with it and have stated it at least once here. I'm saying that trying to argue false merits or benefits makes no sense.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
