Is MacBook Pro worth buying?

[AgentQ]

Also what machine does Software Engineer use?
I read it somewhere that they use Mac because their OS is "safe" from virus/malwarebytes while Windows isn't and Linus OS is okay, but they don't have a lot of software supports.

Again, I only read it somewhere, so I want some confirmation from Software Engineer's users.

The idea that OS X is inherently safer is vastly overblown. It was totally true back in the day when Mac was a tiny sliver of the overall market share, but it's no longer a guaranteed thing. Also, software engineers are generally smart enough to steer clear of malware and viruses in the first place.

The real reason that most software engineers choose OS X is because it's a POSIX operating system with a great GUI. I spend a good portion of my day working in a terminal, and OS X is miles ahead of Windows for that sort of work. With minimal effort, I can keep my code working on both OS X and our target Linux server environment, which makes local development so much easier. Sure I could run Linux on the desktop, but that quickly becomes painful and doesn't have anywhere near the same amount of polish and user-friendliness as OS X.

Windows just isn't really a viable option unless you're developing Windows GUI applications (obviously) or doing isolated, standalone work. Sure you can make things work with Cygwin and the Windows binaries for Python, Ruby, etc. but it's usually an order of magnitude more painful than the equivalent operation on OS X. Usually I'm forced to spin up a Linux VM to do any real software development work on Windows without spinning my wheels getting a proper environment set up. Don't get me wrong, it can be done on Windows. However, it's always far more work than just doing it on OS X or Linux.

OS X has a critical mass of software engineers using it and developing for it, so it also tends to have the best and greatest tools available. Of course, disregard all of this if your goal is to develop Windows desktop GUI apps. It comes from the factory with a terminal application and pre-installed Python, Ruby, etc. You can download the Homebrew package manager and quickly install a huge library of open-source software that has been ported to OS X.

You can even take an OS X machine fresh out of the box, open a genuine bash terminal with a few keystrokes (command-space, type 'Terminal', press enter) and SSH to your servers (with appropriate private keys installed, of course) and get to work. On Windows your only real option is to install PuTTY and futz around with that. Again, you can get the job done but it's far easier and more flexible on OS X.


Finally, the MacBook hardware is hands-down the best hardware I've used for software development in the areas where it really matters. You can get fast CPUs, lots of RAM, SSDs, and great GPUs from any manufacturer. However, the things that really set laptops apart are:
1) Build quality
2) The display quality
3) Battery life
4) Trackpad quality and feel
5) Keyboard quality and feel

My MacBook Pro is hands-down the best combination of all of these factors out of all the laptops I've tried.


My final and perhaps most important piece of advice is: Keep emotion out of it. Too many people get too emotionally tied up in their choice of OS or hardware. This goes for both sides: It's trivially easy to find college kids who swear by their top-of-the-line MacBook Pros but never do anything more than check Facebook and write an occasional paper. Likewise, it's easy to find hardcore gamers (for example) who think Apple products are nothing more than overpriced and over-glorified rip-offs for snooty people who don't know anything about computers. It's probably best to dismiss the opinions of people at both extreme ends of the spectrum.


I'm a software developer, and I only know a handful of people who don't use MacBooks for their work. In fact, I think the only non-Apple laptop in our office right now is our accountant's. That said, it's rare that I don't have my Windows 7 virtual machine up and running so I can use my Windows-only apps in the background.

 

[Terpfen]

The idea that OS X is inherently safer is vastly overblown. It was totally true back in the day when Mac was a tiny sliver of the overall market share, but it's no longer a guaranteed thing.

There's no such thing as a guaranteed anything, but yes, it certainly is still true today. And it has very little to do with market share; there are more Macs than ever in use in the wild, yet the infection rate has not escalated in proportion. OS X is still safer than Windows; however, Windows has made huge strides, which is a good thing for everyone.

 

[hofan41]

The real reason that most software engineers choose OS X is because it's a POSIX operating system with a great GUI.

However, the things that really set laptops apart are:
1) Build quality
2) The display quality
3) Battery life
4) Trackpad quality and feel
5) Keyboard quality and feel

Excellent explanation. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Ryou-kun]

The idea that OS X is inherently safer is vastly overblown. It was totally true back in the day when Mac was a tiny sliver of the overall market share, but it's no longer a guaranteed thing. Also, software engineers are generally smart enough to steer clear of malware and viruses in the first place.

The real reason that most software engineers choose OS X is because it's a POSIX operating system with a great GUI. I spend a good portion of my day working in a terminal, and OS X is miles ahead of Windows for that sort of work. With minimal effort, I can keep my code working on both OS X and our target Linux server environment, which makes local development so much easier. Sure I could run Linux on the desktop, but that quickly becomes painful and doesn't have anywhere near the same amount of polish and user-friendliness as OS X.

Windows just isn't really a viable option unless you're developing Windows GUI applications (obviously) or doing isolated, standalone work. Sure you can make things work with Cygwin and the Windows binaries for Python, Ruby, etc. but it's usually an order of magnitude more painful than the equivalent operation on OS X. Usually I'm forced to spin up a Linux VM to do any real software development work on Windows without spinning my wheels getting a proper environment set up. Don't get me wrong, it can be done on Windows. However, it's always far more work than just doing it on OS X or Linux.

OS X has a critical mass of software engineers using it and developing for it, so it also tends to have the best and greatest tools available. Of course, disregard all of this if your goal is to develop Windows desktop GUI apps. It comes from the factory with a terminal application and pre-installed Python, Ruby, etc. You can download the Homebrew package manager and quickly install a huge library of open-source software that has been ported to OS X.

You can even take an OS X machine fresh out of the box, open a genuine bash terminal with a few keystrokes (command-space, type 'Terminal', press enter) and SSH to your servers (with appropriate private keys installed, of course) and get to work. On Windows your only real option is to install PuTTY and futz around with that. Again, you can get the job done but it's far easier and more flexible on OS X.


Finally, the MacBook hardware is hands-down the best hardware I've used for software development in the areas where it really matters. You can get fast CPUs, lots of RAM, SSDs, and great GPUs from any manufacturer. However, the things that really set laptops apart are:
1) Build quality
2) The display quality
3) Battery life
4) Trackpad quality and feel
5) Keyboard quality and feel

My MacBook Pro is hands-down the best combination of all of these factors out of all the laptops I've tried.


My final and perhaps most important piece of advice is: Keep emotion out of it. Too many people get too emotionally tied up in their choice of OS or hardware. This goes for both sides: It's trivially easy to find college kids who swear by their top-of-the-line MacBook Pros but never do anything more than check Facebook and write an occasional paper. Likewise, it's easy to find hardcore gamers (for example) who think Apple products are nothing more than overpriced and over-glorified rip-offs for snooty people who don't know anything about computers. It's probably best to dismiss the opinions of people at both extreme ends of the spectrum.


I'm a software developer, and I only know a handful of people who don't use MacBooks for their work. In fact, I think the only non-Apple laptop in our office right now is our accountant's. That said, it's rare that I don't have my Windows 7 virtual machine up and running so I can use my Windows-only apps in the background.

Excellent explanation. I always get tied up between hardware and price of Mac because I am a PC gamer, but I think my final decision is getting closer.

Of course, I am not going to blame you guys if I make a mistake on it, however, it is going to wait till I feel like it is now the time to buy Macbook Pro 15 w/ Retina Display.

 

[Ruoh]

I can tell you from personal experience that the "base" 15" rMBP plays WoW perfectly @1900x1200. You'd think it'd be bad with the IGP, but it works well.

 

[raz-0]

The OS is not that bad compare to Windows in general. There are quite a bit of flaws in Mac OS, but everything starting to get sort out since Snow Leopard. The multi-screen support is now far superior on Maverick compare to Windows.

Under IT/Engineering, Mac in anyway is far superior than Windows. As it does a lot of things natively and much better support than windows.

Overall, if you are working around with Development / Design, you are better off with a Mac. For gaming related, get Windows...

I switched over to a MBP a little over a year ago. I had to do some CS coursework on system 7 way back when, and messed with some mac os 9. Both of which IMO were deeply unacceptable along with the hardware. Osx is pretty decent though.

In general I agree with you. One place where I do not is design. The only semi-legitimate point on that is the way color management is integrated in osx, but guess what.. the sucker isn't calibrated out of the box, and at least on laptops the dimming screen and changing ambient light kills any chance of that. Even if you DO calibrate it, it's still not reflective and is a totally different gamut form print. Windows actually has a wider variety of software for design once you step out of the adobe ecosphere. 3d software? windows has way more options. CAD? more options and more features for cross platform products. My wife does print and web design for a living, and prefers PC, although she has had to cave on having a mac around for idiot customers who blow a gasket about design work not being done on a mac.

I had beat my pc into submission for work, and even so OSX with me bumping around as an OSX noob was still less overhead to be able to do my work stuff remotely (work is fairly unix centric). Cross platform mobile development it can't be beat becasue of the iOS lockdown to macs and the fact that android comes from a unix-centric development base.

Gaming you can't beat windows, but the percentage of my steam backlog available on my mac for no extra money was pretty shocking.

One thing I will add is that OSX seems to be improving a number of it's shortcomings while windows appears to be committed to making their OS experience worse at the moment.

Oddly, there were three reasons I wounbd up going with mac (in conjunction with my last laptop keeling over rapidly and me not being able to wait for revised models).

1) at the time every windows laptop seemed to be placing it's air intake right where either your left thigh or right thigh would be if you actually used it on your lap. (and for the first time in known history, apple actually seemed ot put decent heat management on their list of things to do which included their intakes)

2) the majority of PCs were offsetting the trackpad to the right a LOT. combine that with worse trackpads than the apple offerings, and it was maddening.

3) very, very few offerings combined decent chassis construction with decent screens (without getting into massive gaming laptops), and those were not substantially cheaper than the mac.

 

[Deinos]

I switched over to a MBP a little over a year ago. I had to do some CS coursework on system 7 way back when, and messed with some mac os 9. Both of which IMO were deeply unacceptable along with the hardware. Osx is pretty decent though.

In general I agree with you. One place where I do not is design. The only semi-legitimate point on that is the way color management is integrated in osx, but guess what.. the sucker isn't calibrated out of the box, and at least on laptops the dimming screen and changing ambient light kills any chance of that. Even if you DO calibrate it, it's still not reflective and is a totally different gamut form print. Windows actually has a wider variety of software for design once you step out of the adobe ecosphere. 3d software? windows has way more options. CAD? more options and more features for cross platform products. My wife does print and web design for a living, and prefers PC, although she has had to cave on having a mac around for idiot customers who blow a gasket about design work not being done on a mac.

I had beat my pc into submission for work, and even so OSX with me bumping around as an OSX noob was still less overhead to be able to do my work stuff remotely (work is fairly unix centric). Cross platform mobile development it can't be beat becasue of the iOS lockdown to macs and the fact that android comes from a unix-centric development base.

Gaming you can't beat windows, but the percentage of my steam backlog available on my mac for no extra money was pretty shocking.

One thing I will add is that OSX seems to be improving a number of it's shortcomings while windows appears to be committed to making their OS experience worse at the moment.

Oddly, there were three reasons I wounbd up going with mac (in conjunction with my last laptop keeling over rapidly and me not being able to wait for revised models).

1) at the time every windows laptop seemed to be placing it's air intake right where either your left thigh or right thigh would be if you actually used it on your lap. (and for the first time in known history, apple actually seemed ot put decent heat management on their list of things to do which included their intakes)

2) the majority of PCs were offsetting the trackpad to the right a LOT. combine that with worse trackpads than the apple offerings, and it was maddening.

3) very, very few offerings combined decent chassis construction with decent screens (without getting into massive gaming laptops), and those were not substantially cheaper than the mac.

Good, well measured feedback Curious, what windows laptop were you using prior to the switch?

 

[AgentQ]

In general I agree with you. One place where I do not is design. The only semi-legitimate point on that is the way color management is integrated in osx, but guess what.. the sucker isn't calibrated out of the box, and at least on laptops the dimming screen and changing ambient light kills any chance of that. Even if you DO calibrate it, it's still not reflective and is a totally different gamut form print.

Not sure what you're getting at here, because most laptops aren't color-calibrated out of the box and all displays will have the same differences from print, so it's not like this an Apple-specific problem.

Also, when you color calibrate your laptop you turn off the automatic screen dimming so you can calibrate at a known brightness. Non-issue.

Windows actually has a wider variety of software for design once you step out of the adobe ecosphere. 3d software? windows has way more options. CAD? more options and more features for cross platform products. My wife does print and web design for a living, and prefers PC, although she has had to cave on having a mac around for idiot customers who blow a gasket about design work not being done on a mac.

I had beat my pc into submission for work, and even so OSX with me bumping around as an OSX noob was still less overhead to be able to do my work stuff remotely (work is fairly unix centric). Cross platform mobile development it can't be beat becasue of the iOS lockdown to macs and the fact that android comes from a unix-centric development base.

Gaming you can't beat windows, but the percentage of my steam backlog available on my mac for no extra money was pretty shocking.

One thing I will add is that OSX seems to be improving a number of it's shortcomings while windows appears to be committed to making their OS experience worse at the moment.

Spot on. Picking your software packages first is absolutely critical. If you're just going to be doing CAD or engineering simulations all day, you're going to want a Windows machine because that's where the software is at in those fields. Conversely, if you're doing POSIX-type development, starting with Windows doesn't make a bit of sense.

However, I end up running a lot of my engineering software in a Windows 7 VM on my MBP in Parallels. I let the VM go full screen and treat it as another desktop. From there it's just a three-finger-swipe gesture over to the Windows 7 VM and everything is great.

All bets are off if you're doing 3D CAD, however. I always go back to my Windows desktop for modeling work. I also do long-running simulations on the real hardware, because the VM on a laptop is never going to be as fast as bare metal on a workstation.

But again, you need to evaluate your needs before you pick a system.

Oddly, there were three reasons I wounbd up going with mac (in conjunction with my last laptop keeling over rapidly and me not being able to wait for revised models).

1) at the time every windows laptop seemed to be placing it's air intake right where either your left thigh or right thigh would be if you actually used it on your lap. (and for the first time in known history, apple actually seemed ot put decent heat management on their list of things to do which included their intakes)

2) the majority of PCs were offsetting the trackpad to the right a LOT. combine that with worse trackpads than the apple offerings, and it was maddening.

3) very, very few offerings combined decent chassis construction with decent screens (without getting into massive gaming laptops), and those were not substantially cheaper than the mac.

Agreed on all counts. This goes back to my earlier statement about build quality. Apple has this nailed. You can't beat (or even match) the build quality and the feel of the trackpad on an Apple laptop.

 

[raz-0]

Good, well measured feedback Curious, what windows laptop were you using prior to the switch?

It was an older 12" dell xps. I tend to spend a decent amount on laptops and keep them a while. It's lifespan was good, it was just finally dying after about five years, and it was going downhill rapidly. Fans were going and the display was getting a bad flicker.

Not sure what you're getting at here, because most laptops aren't color-calibrated out of the box and all displays will have the same differences from print, so it's not like this an Apple-specific problem.

Also, when you color calibrate your laptop you turn off the automatic screen dimming so you can calibrate at a known brightness. Non-issue.

It's not a Mac problem. It's just this "advantage" that always gets brought up when justifying statements like "you need a Mac for design" that doesn't really exist, especially out of the box. You basically have to do the same dance PC or Mac if you want your print stuff to look good.

 

[mope54]

It's not a Mac problem. It's just this "advantage" that always gets brought up when justifying statements like "you need a Mac for design" that doesn't really exist, especially out of the box. You basically have to do the same dance PC or Mac if you want your print stuff to look good.

The counter-point is that after you're done calibrating (and it's easier to do correctly in OS X compared to Windows' native calibration tools) you are looking at a calibrated IPS screen (and with retina a gorgeous resolution) rather than a cruddy (and 16:9) TN panel.

 

[raz-0]

The counter-point is that after you're done calibrating (and it's easier to do correctly in OS X compared to Windows' native calibration tools) you are looking at a calibrated IPS screen (and with retina a gorgeous resolution) rather than a cruddy (and 16:9) TN panel.

Funny, all my pcs have had calibrated crts or ips lcds.

I know, a seemingly impossible occurance. Yet produced with the simple application of a few extra dollars, and 15 minutes if calibrating.

And osx is so intuitively easy I know of more than design shop enamored of the belief they can't do web site images that look right on Mac and have a PC for that stuff. Mainly because they have a very poor grasp of color management across multiple mediums.

Like I said, it's not a really differentiating feature.

 

[mope54]

Funny, all my pcs have had calibrated crts or ips lcds.

I know, a seemingly impossible occurance. Yet produced with the simple application of a few extra dollars, and 15 minutes if calibrating.

And osx is so intuitively easy I know of more than design shop enamored of the belief they can't do web site images that look right on Mac and have a PC for that stuff. Mainly because they have a very poor grasp of color management across multiple mediums.

Like I said, it's not a really differentiating feature.

how do you calibrate your laptop's CRT? that is a seemingly impossible occurrence.

this thread is about the macbook pro, a laptop, not comparing what you do or don't have at home for a desktop solution

 

[Romale23]

Windows is much worse.

has a unix-like terminal? Nope
has sed? Nope
has grep? Nope
has cron jobs? Nope
has bash scripts? Nope

Pretty pointless. But then again I have been in the OSX/Linux world for the past decade.

not to be a dick but there isn't a function there you can't do in powershell, so yes to all minus the "bash" script since its not bash, but you can obviously do scripting.

 

[raz-0]

how do you calibrate your laptop's CRT? that is a seemingly impossible occurrence.

this thread is about the macbook pro, a laptop, not comparing what you do or don't have at home for a desktop solution

In my evaluation given to the op I said that from a design perspective, people will say osx has super special color management, and to disregard such as it is meaningless.

To then nearly immediately have someone say that it has super special color correction. Osx color correction doesn't make color management idiot proof, and calibration on a PC is a matter of a piece of hardware and 15 minutes. I've been doing it since crts were the only thing available.

They also went into the land of apple displays are magic. While the retina display is very nice (I have one), their ips screens are the same thing tons of windows laptops have, and are nothing special.

 

[mope54]

whenever a professional is talking about "color management" he or she is not talking about magical displays. *You* may think that is what is being talked about but when you think that you are confusing color management with color calibration.

I said when someone calibrates a screen natively in OS X it's easier to do with the tools provided compared to Windows native tools. Your claim that you can do the same thing with extra hardware and software doesn't make that any less true.

Also, I said when done the difference is a nice ratio and higher quality screen than normally found. The fact that someone might be able to find a smattering of laptops that offer somewhat equally good quality screens (albeit with worse aspect ratios and resolutions) doesn't change the fact that standard laptop screens are pretty horrible in quality.

That's not some special, magical nonsensical straw man you are trying to construct in this thread but they are real, genuine, and important differences. Differences that exist you tried to claim should be ignored. Those aspects of a macbook shouldn't be ignored if someone is interested in the best quality screen one can obtain. It's simply false to state, as you did, that if someone wants the best screen he or she can simply ignore differences between Apple's offerings and the rest of the market.


That said, the confusion you are creating between color management and color calibration makes this issue you tried to convince people to ignore even worse. The fact of the matter is the things you are talking about are about what the person sees on his or her computer. That has little relevance to what comes out the printer. When professionals talk about color management in OS X they are not talking about the screen they are staring at. That's your misunderstanding of the issue--not theirs.

 

[raz-0]

whenever a professional is talking about "color management" he or she is not talking about magical displays. *You* may think that is what is being talked about but when you think that you are confusing color management with color calibration.

I said when someone calibrates a screen natively in OS X it's easier to do with the tools provided compared to Windows native tools. Your claim that you can do the same thing with extra hardware and software doesn't make that any less true.

Also, I said when done the difference is a nice ratio and higher quality screen than normally found. The fact that someone might be able to find a smattering of laptops that offer somewhat equally good quality screens (albeit with worse aspect ratios and resolutions) doesn't change the fact that standard laptop screens are pretty horrible in quality.

That's not some special, magical nonsensical straw man you are trying to construct in this thread but they are real, genuine, and important differences. Differences that exist you tried to claim should be ignored. Those aspects of a macbook shouldn't be ignored if someone is interested in the best quality screen one can obtain. It's simply false to state, as you did, that if someone wants the best screen he or she can simply ignore differences between Apple's offerings and the rest of the market.


That said, the confusion you are creating between color management and color calibration makes this issue you tried to convince people to ignore even worse. The fact of the matter is the things you are talking about are about what the person sees on his or her computer. That has little relevance to what comes out the printer. When professionals talk about color management in OS X they are not talking about the screen they are staring at. That's your misunderstanding of the issue--not theirs.

Get over yourself. Mac zealots like to think apple has some magic source of LCD panels. Nobody else does. If you aren't getting a retina display, their ips is no better than say the samsung series 9 with samsungs version of ips. Is it easier to shop the Mac lineup in person? Hell yeah. Also the software only color calibration on the Mac isn't anything special. If you aren't at least using a colorimeter to calibrate, you aren't getting that close. Sorry.

The only point of calibrating is for color management.

If 16:9 vs 16:10 causes you to go into the fetal position, that's your personal taste, and nothing is clearly better than the other. If external displays were all one aspect ratio, yeah matching it would be better, but you can get nice external ips screens in both these days.

When trying to pick platform, I tend to focus on things that are actually different. Screens are a matter of shopping, not something platform exclusive. (Except retina, unless some PC maker decided to compete there and I missed it). Color calibration isn't IMO either as I've never found software only to do that good a job. Which means pick up a hardware device regardless.

Step into apples desktop offerings, and your assumption that their displays are very good (a claim that formerly had merit), and you can wind up very dissappointed these days. QC isn't that hot either.

 

[Deinos]

...When trying to pick platform, I tend to focus on things that are actually different. Screens are a matter of shopping, not something platform exclusive. (Except retina, unless some PC maker decided to compete there and I missed it). Color calibration isn't IMO either as I've never found software only to do that good a job. Which means pick up a hardware device regardless...

With the new Sharp panels, there will most likely be a lot of windows laptops competing in that space. There are laptops already available with "retina" screens. Thinkpad W540 has a retina ips; Yoga 2 has one as well (not sure it is ips though, will have to double check). That is just to name a few. However, windows and scaling seems like a crap shoot so...

In the end, it comes down to the OS and available software/ecosystem. Figure out your work flow, and then choose what is going to get it done efficiently.

The hardware itself is about even with some exceptions (e.g. Apple wins the trackpad argument; Windows wins on variety of configuration options). To say that the MBP is categorically better seems ignorant, unless you are comparing it to the dregs of consumer laptops on the windows side; and, in that case, of course it is!

If you compare a MBP to better Thinkpads and Dell and HP business class systems, it becomes more of a toss up with each having something it does better than the other system.

 

[mjz_5]

buy the mac book pro retina and just install windows on it

i dual boot. i'm starting to like mac OSX

 

[Drawmonster]

buy the mac book pro retina and just install windows on it

i dual boot. i'm starting to like mac OSX

Was always curious about that. Can a MBP just run Windows 7? I love the build quality of them, but hate the OS.

 

[voklskier4452]

I bought a 2012 retina base model off the apple refurb site. I use it for school and for personal use. I started out using it as a mechanical engineering student, meaning I did lots of 3d modeling in solidworks. It worked great for that and the large resolution gave me a huge working space while running windows 8. Now I am studying as an electrical engineer and I am running multisim, labview, and codewarrior on the windows side while running matlab on the mac side. I have never once found myself wanting for more horsepower with this thing. I also drag this thing to class everyday and I have no issue carrying it around since it is so thin and light weight for a 15" laptop.

That said I am however hating the 256gb SSD. I am trolling ebay currently looking for a 512gb or 768gb SSD to swap mine out for. I am also finding myself wishing I had gone for 16gb just for future use. You should know that buying a rmbp will almost certainly be overkill for your use but if you want one just buy one because that was the boat I was in and definitely don't regret it.

 

[Deinos]

I bought a 2012 retina base model off the apple refurb site. I use it for school and for personal use. I started out using it as a mechanical engineering student, meaning I did lots of 3d modeling in solidworks. It worked great for that and the large resolution gave me a huge working space while running windows 8. Now I am studying as an electrical engineer and I am running multisim, labview, and codewarrior on the windows side while running matlab on the mac side. I have never once found myself wanting for more horsepower with this thing. I also drag this thing to class everyday and I have no issue carrying it around since it is so thin and light weight for a 15" laptop.

That said I am however hating the 256gb SSD. I am trolling ebay currently looking for a 512gb or 768gb SSD to swap mine out for. I am also finding myself wishing I had gone for 16gb just for future use. You should know that buying a rmbp will almost certainly be overkill for your use but if you want one just buy one because that was the boat I was in and definitely don't regret it.

As hard and expensive as it is to replace the drive in those things and the fact that you wish you had 16gb (which can't be upgraded), you should consider selling yours and go for the newer version with 16gb/512gb. You could probably get a good price for your current model, and you can get
that model refurbed for $2199.00

 

[Ruoh]

Was always curious about that. Can a MBP just run Windows 7? I love the build quality of them, but hate the OS.

The answer to that is yes, you can. You should spend some time with Mavericks though. It's so damn refreshing no dealing with device drivers, and everything just *works*.

 

[mope54]

Get over yourself. Mac zealots like to think apple has some magic source of LCD panels. Nobody else does. If you aren't getting a retina display, their ips is no better than say the samsung series 9 with samsungs version of ips. Is it easier to shop the Mac lineup in person? Hell yeah. Also the software only color calibration on the Mac isn't anything special. If you aren't at least using a colorimeter to calibrate, you aren't getting that close. Sorry.

The only point of calibrating is for color management.

No, no one is arguing that Apple's LCD panels are special. You're still arguing about color calibration and focusing on what is in front of you on the screen so it's apparent that you don't understand the issues regarding color space management (primarily concerned with *other* people's screens and external publishing). You've crossed over into prattling on about magical displays and zealotry so it's clear you have an axe to grind...but it's an axe better ground in another section of the forum so please quit trolling this one. You've made your position clear--you think there are no differences between OS X and Windows when it comes to color space management. Got it. Thanks and move along now.

 

[Deleted whining member 223597]

The answer to that is yes, you can. You should spend some time with Mavericks though. It's so damn refreshing no dealing with device drivers, and everything just *works*.

I never thought I would say it, but you are so right. I had to print something out, connected my printer and it instantly found the driver for me and downloaded it. Installed and printed everything out within like 2 minutes. Windows made me search the internet for it and install it. Not a huge deal, but small things like that add up and make it more comfortable to use OSX.

 

[Eminence_Front]

something to consider.

Yes you can run another non Mac Os on it, since it's all commodity intel stuff now.

2nd, Mac Book Pro got the highest rating for Windows 8 user experience and stability...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57581290-37/macbook-pro-declared-best-performing-windows-laptop/

 

[Ryou-kun]

Also quick question, if buying refurbished Macbook Pro 15 Retina, is it worth paying extra money for a dedicated GPU or the Intel Iris IGP can handle it without any problem.

 

[mope54]

Iris will handle everything you listed but if you want to game on the macbook you'll benefit from the dedicated GPU option.

 

[Snoflo]

I used PowerBooks and MacBook Pros for many years. They were stable and a joy to use. However, if you want something on another level you can check out Dell's Mobile Precision line, or HP's Z series workstations.

 

[Ryou-kun]

Say, when you guys buy Macbook Pro 15 Retina. Do you guys buy it on "Back to School" deals or the Holiday Seasons?

Also which deals is cheaper?

 

[Ruoh]

I paid straight up. $2157(?) out the door. It's a bargain, if you ask me.

 

[mope54]

Say, when you guys buy Macbook Pro 15 Retina. Do you guys buy it on "Back to School" deals or the Holiday Seasons?

Also which deals is cheaper?

I get one with apple care from craigslist and make sure it doesn't have water damage. For a retina it would be a good idea to just meet at the apple store at an arranged time when you have an appointment at the genius bar. they'll open it up and verify that it hasn't been tampered with or internally damaged. then you can pay the person and the device is yours.

it doesn't cost anything and apple products are in such demand that people will counterfeit and sell damaged ones to unsuspecting buyers.

 

[Deleted whining member 223597]

You can always just buy a brand new one with everything you want. Then down the road if you want a new one, you can sell it for not much of a loss. MBPr seem to age pretty well and the price does too.

 

[Ryou-kun]

I am still curious if it is still worth spending extra $500 dollar for a MBPr with GT 750m for a Refurbished one on Apple's Store.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/macbook_pro/15

Well, not only it has a dedicated GPU, it double the RAM and Flash Storage.


Also, what kind of case would you guys recommend for MBPr protection AND a good ethernet adapter.

 

[mope54]

it's worth it for all of those, yes. but whether you need it depends on how you're going to use it because the GPU is a marked improvement when gaming but iris has a lot of benefits on its own.

 

[Ryou-kun]

it's worth it for all of those, yes. but whether you need it depends on how you're going to use it because the GPU is a marked improvement when gaming but iris has a lot of benefits on its own.

Such as?

Also do you know any benchmark that Iris IGP is rival to or close to a dedicated GPU if possible.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

The Iris Pro in the "base" 15 rMBP is really good for an IGP, but still nothing compared to discrete graphics. If you want to do any serious gaming at all you need to have the 750m. Do a search on Youtube, there's a really good comparison on there.

 

[Andyk5]

The idea that OS X is inherently safer is vastly overblown. It was totally true back in the day when Mac was a tiny sliver of the overall market share, but it's no longer a guaranteed thing. Also, software engineers are generally smart enough to steer clear of malware and viruses in the first place.

The real reason that most software engineers choose OS X is because it's a POSIX operating system with a great GUI. I spend a good portion of my day working in a terminal, and OS X is miles ahead of Windows for that sort of work. With minimal effort, I can keep my code working on both OS X and our target Linux server environment, which makes local development so much easier. Sure I could run Linux on the desktop, but that quickly becomes painful and doesn't have anywhere near the same amount of polish and user-friendliness as OS X.

Windows just isn't really a viable option unless you're developing Windows GUI applications (obviously) or doing isolated, standalone work. Sure you can make things work with Cygwin and the Windows binaries for Python, Ruby, etc. but it's usually an order of magnitude more painful than the equivalent operation on OS X. Usually I'm forced to spin up a Linux VM to do any real software development work on Windows without spinning my wheels getting a proper environment set up. Don't get me wrong, it can be done on Windows. However, it's always far more work than just doing it on OS X or Linux.

OS X has a critical mass of software engineers using it and developing for it, so it also tends to have the best and greatest tools available. Of course, disregard all of this if your goal is to develop Windows desktop GUI apps. It comes from the factory with a terminal application and pre-installed Python, Ruby, etc. You can download the Homebrew package manager and quickly install a huge library of open-source software that has been ported to OS X.

You can even take an OS X machine fresh out of the box, open a genuine bash terminal with a few keystrokes (command-space, type 'Terminal', press enter) and SSH to your servers (with appropriate private keys installed, of course) and get to work. On Windows your only real option is to install PuTTY and futz around with that. Again, you can get the job done but it's far easier and more flexible on OS X.


Finally, the MacBook hardware is hands-down the best hardware I've used for software development in the areas where it really matters. You can get fast CPUs, lots of RAM, SSDs, and great GPUs from any manufacturer. However, the things that really set laptops apart are:
1) Build quality
2) The display quality
3) Battery life
4) Trackpad quality and feel
5) Keyboard quality and feel

My MacBook Pro is hands-down the best combination of all of these factors out of all the laptops I've tried.


My final and perhaps most important piece of advice is: Keep emotion out of it. Too many people get too emotionally tied up in their choice of OS or hardware. This goes for both sides: It's trivially easy to find college kids who swear by their top-of-the-line MacBook Pros but never do anything more than check Facebook and write an occasional paper. Likewise, it's easy to find hardcore gamers (for example) who think Apple products are nothing more than overpriced and over-glorified rip-offs for snooty people who don't know anything about computers. It's probably best to dismiss the opinions of people at both extreme ends of the spectrum.


I'm a software developer, and I only know a handful of people who don't use MacBooks for their work. In fact, I think the only non-Apple laptop in our office right now is our accountant's. That said, it's rare that I don't have my Windows 7 virtual machine up and running so I can use my Windows-only apps in the background.

This man has just answered all questions regarding to "shall I buy a mac and/or why?"

I have been a windows person my self for 20 years, I am an electrical engineer and most of my productivity software like FPGA synthesis tools, board layout software, circuit simulation suites etc... run on Windows only. However I am considering switching to Mac for the reasons above, The build quality, the feel of the laptop, the screen, track pad, keyboard etc... I also started doing some Python coding and a Mac "physically" a better machine to work on. I hate the fact that PC manufacturers still put 1400x900 screens in cheap black bulky plastics with keyboards that flex like a brazilian girl twerking on a carnival and still ask for $1k+ for their machines....

One last thing... Mac is the last stand 16:10 laptop's. When your display area is limited like it is on a laptop, 16:10 aspect ratio makes a big difference. Some people say as the resolutions increase, the aspect ratio loses importance and they are wrong. We come from a 4:3 aspect ratio CRT monitor background which is about the size of an 8.5x11 A4 sheet. Meaning vertical size versus horizontal is very important for things to "look and feel" ok. I had 3 16:9 1440p screens on my desktop with 11million pixels at my command and I was still looking for that 16:10 aspect ratio. All PC manufacturers today, even the models that are made for "professionals" the workstations, the W series and the Elite and Precision.....even their $6000 models will still come with a 16:9 screen which is specifically designed for media consumption (720p and 1080p videos play without borders...)

 

[mope54]

he does have his history a little backwards, however. back when macs were a tinier sliver of the market they suffered from more malware. OS X was the change not Macs getting less popular or becoming less of a target.

 

[Ryou-kun]

Also, comparing Macbook Pro 15 Retina with Ivy Bridge to Haswell. Which is better?

Just the CPU itself rendering and performing the tasks at single and multicores...

 

[Cheetoz]

Also, comparing Macbook Pro 15 Retina with Ivy Bridge to Haswell. Which is better?

Just the CPU itself rendering and performing the tasks at single and multicores...

Ignoring power consumption, either one could be better than the other depending on what frequency you get it.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks