[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The early 2011 Thunderbolt MacBooks Pro can take 16 GB, but Apple still lists them as 8 GB maximum.

This is true of many many Mac models. Download Mactracker or visit Mactracker - Get Info on any Mac and you'll see that many Macs have two entries for max RAM, one marked Apple and one marked Actual.

[Spheric Harlot]

Yep.

[kenna]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

A bit of an annoyance since it adds bulk, but isn't a USB powered external optical drive an option or am I missing something.?

It is an option yes, I'm just reluctant to play around inside my MacBook Pro… I'm not very confident with electronics, although I feel very competent as a user of OS X and applications in general… I'm definitely a software man over a hardware man.

Would a FireWire 800 SSD be much faster with Final Cut Pro X given that I have a 5,400RPM internal Hard Drive now that's running slow?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by kenna 

Would a FireWire 800 SSD be much faster with Final Cut Pro X given that I have a 5,400RPM internal Hard Drive now that's running slow?

You shouldn't waste the investment in an SSD by putting it into a hard drive enclosure. Instead, put the SSD into your mobile Mac and use the leftover hard drive externally.

[kenna]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You shouldn't waste the investment in an SSD by putting it into a hard drive enclosure. Instead, put the SSD into your mobile Mac and use the leftover hard drive externally.

Is there any way in which I'll break my Mac by opening it up? That's what makes me worry… as well as the fact that most people say 3rd party RAM is what eventually defuncts your Mac/causes it problems.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by kenna 

Is there any way in which I'll break my Mac by opening it up? That's what makes me worry… as well as the fact that most people say 3rd party RAM is what eventually defuncts your Mac/causes it problems.

One relevant safety tip is to stand on a hard surface, like wood or tile, rather than carpet, to avoid building up a static charge, and touching a metal part of the inside case to discharge any static electricity that you might already have before touching anything else. Other than that, as long as you're careful, you should be fine. The unibody MBPs (other than the retina one, obviously), are remarkably easy to open up and swap parts out of.

If you feel like you'd like some help, check ifixit.com. They usually have step-by-step instructions to open and service Macs, with pictures. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have a page for your Early 2011 17" MBP, but they do have one for the early 2011 15" model and the late 2010 17" model, and it really shouldn't be too different from those.

As for the RAM, just keep the original RAM around somewhere. If you need to send in the machine for warranty repair, just swap the original RAM back in before you do it.

[jmiddel]

Kenna, if you are careful and gentle, no you will not break anything just by opening it, it's meant to be opened. Once you are inside, in addition to Charles' advice, just make sure you detach the cables by the connector itself, not by pulling on the cable. If this is your first time, take time If something seems difficult, get up and walk around. At least that's what works for me.

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by mikeskuro 

I am good at killing these kinds of threads. I sent this to [email protected]
...

Hint: don't write such long posts.
Your post is going to have no effect on "killing" this thread.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by kenna 

...most people say 3rd party RAM is what eventually defuncts your Mac/causes it problems.

That is untrue if one sticks to reliable vendors. Crucial, Kingston, OWC, etc.

[Waragainstsleep]

I've never heard anyone else claim that poor quality RAM will damage a Mac, not even Apple say this.

[Stevesong]

The story that 3rd party RAM "eventually defuncts your Mac/causes problems" has its roots in a rather dubious business practice engaged in by Apple. This practice is as follows: when you take a Mac to an Apple Store or other authorized service shop for repair, it is not unusual to be told that the problem was caused by your third party RAM. This is almost always not true. Rather it is meant to scare customers so that they won't buy 3rd party RAM at less expensive prices than those charged by Apple - - or to convince them that they should buy replacement RAM from Apple. This is why it is a good idea to save the RAM that came with your Mac and reinstall it before taking the machine in for repair.

[Eug]

iFixit broke their MBP:TNG's screen:

MacBook Pro 15" Retina Display Teardown - iFixit



MacBook Pro with Retina display earned our lowest repairability score ever, with 1 out of 10 points.

Originally Posted by Stevesong 

The story that 3rd party RAM "eventually defuncts your Mac/causes problems" has its roots in a rather dubious business practice engaged in by Apple. This practice is as follows: when you take a Mac to an Apple Store or other authorized service shop for repair, it is not unusual to be told that the problem was caused by your third party RAM. This is almost always not true. Rather it is meant to scare customers so that they won't buy 3rd party RAM at less expensive prices than those charged by Apple - - or to convince them that they should buy replacement RAM from Apple. This is why it is a good idea to save the RAM that came with your Mac and reinstall it before taking the machine in for repair.

I have had several issues with my iMacs and Mac laptops throughout the years that were directly caused by faulty 3rd party RAM. Nowadays I tend to just look at what RAM it comes with, and then buy the exact same RAM.

BTW, I took my Core i7 iMac in with my 3rd party RAM because I forgot to remove it - 2 GB x 4 = 8 GB (with 2 of the sticks of 2 GB being 3rd party). They determined the problem wasn't the RAM, but a couple of other things, so they ended up replacing the entire machine including the whole 8 GB RAM. However, they gave me 4 GB x 2, so I had two empty slots in the new machine. Bonus. I added another 2 GB x 2, so I'm at 12 GB now.

[SierraDragon]

Finally I got to the Apple Store to check out the retina display. The resolution is nice, but still glossy. Suggestions that the retina displays reduce glare significantly are as far as I can tell false.

Apple constantly resets the display viewing angles in their stores in an attempt to minimize glare, but viewed from a side angle or compared against an anti-glare display the glare displays pop out.

-Allen

[P]

It is glossy, but without the glass panel, an anti-glare film should have a better chance of working.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Finally I got to the Apple Store to check out the retina display. The resolution is nice, but still glossy. Suggestions that the retina displays reduce glare significantly are as far as I can tell false.

If it's the same difference as the plastic MacBooks and MacBooks Air vs. the MacBooks Pro, the difference is *significant*.

I've seen figures of 75% less reflections, and owning both a 2006 MacBook and a 2011 MBPro, I believe it. (The MBP's display is so much brighter though, that it never really mattered.)

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Stevesong 

The story that 3rd party RAM "eventually defuncts your Mac/causes problems" has its roots in a rather dubious business practice engaged in by Apple. This practice is as follows: when you take a Mac to an Apple Store or other authorized service shop for repair, it is not unusual to be told that the problem was caused by your third party RAM. This is almost always not true. Rather it is meant to scare customers so that they won't buy 3rd party RAM at less expensive prices than those charged by Apple - - or to convince them that they should buy replacement RAM from Apple. This is why it is a good idea to save the RAM that came with your Mac and reinstall it before taking the machine in for repair.

There is some truth and some inaccuracy in here.

I have never known Apple to claim that 3rd party RAM will cause your Mac to fail in other ways and I am certain that if this was ever a claim they made I would have heard it from someone.
I have seen them blame difficult to diagnose problems on perfectly good 3rd party RAM but for the most part they simply put Apple RAM while they are testing your Mac these days. It remains a good idea to replace the original RAM when taking it in for a repair if you have a very tricky or intermittent problem. If your Mac is powering off spontaneously or making odd noises, its probably not going to be a RAM issue, 3rd party or otherwise.

To some up, yes they will tend to blame problems incorrectly on 3rd party RAM, but they have never claimed that such RAM would do lasting damage to your Mac.
There is an element of truth to it. I have seen plenty of problems caused by crappy RAM or slightly incorrectly specced RAM.

[angelmb]

MacBook Pro 15″ with Retina Display Can Run 3 External Displays.

Moving images and media didn’t create any lag and we were able to play video on all four displays simultaneously.

Nice.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

Moving images and media didn’t create any lag and we were able to play video on all four displays simultaneously.

Too bad in Lion you can't maximize a video on a single screen without making all the other screens go dark.

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Too bad in Lion you can't maximize a video on a single screen without making all the other screens go dark.

Not just videos; try running a full screen app.
Same stupid thing.

I can't for the life of me figure out the reasoning behind this.
Is the code too difficult even for the obviously talented developers at Apple?
We can have multiple monitors but only 1 full screen app at a time on said monitors?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by msuper69 

Not just videos; try running a full screen app.
Same stupid thing.

I can't for the life of me figure out the reasoning behind this.
Is the code too difficult even for the obviously talented developers at Apple?
We can have multiple monitors but only 1 full screen app at a time on said monitors?

One problem with "full screen" is that it hides the menu bar and Dock.

Not good with multiple monitors.

There needs to be a way to full-screen something like QuickTime in the background; I agree.

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

One problem with "full screen" is that it hides the menu bar and Dock.

Not good with multiple monitors.

There needs to be a way to full-screen something like QuickTime in the background; I agree.

The menu bar and Dock can both be retrieved by moving the mouse pointer to the top or bottom of the screen, respectively.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by msuper69 

The menu bar and Dock can both be retrieved by moving the mouse pointer to the top or bottom of the screen, respectively.

Yes, I know.

But you're running several monitors. Which screen?

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Yes, I know.

But you're running several monitors. Which screen?

The main screen; in my case, the center display.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by msuper69 

The main screen; in my case, the center display.

How do you tell the main screen in full-screen mode?

Or are you just going to have users try it out?

Or are you going to split or double the menu bar/Dock?

No, I'm sure *you* can keep track of this, but it seems clear to me that this is not an option for Apple. Not the least, it would wreak monstrous horrors upon untold numbers of hapless presenters and their Powerpoint presentations...

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

How do you tell the main screen in full-screen mode?

Or are you just going to have users try it out?

Or are you going to split or double the menu bar/Dock?

That's how I've got it set up in System Preferences.
I'm the only user so it's fairly obvious to me which is the main screen.

[boy8cookie]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

How do you tell the main screen in full-screen mode?

Or are you just going to have users try it out?

Or are you going to split or double the menu bar/Dock?

No, I'm sure *you* can keep track of this, but it seems clear to me that this is not an option for Apple. Not the least, it would wreak monstrous horrors upon untold numbers of hapless presenters and their Powerpoint presentations...

Are you seriously defending the way fullscreen apps behave in a multi monitor setup?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by boy8cookie 

Are you seriously defending the way fullscreen apps behave in a multi monitor setup?

Tell that to NVidia and AMD.

[mduell]

What?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

The 1 display full screen thing is a driver issue. They (NVidia and AMD) only support 1 application at a time that way.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

The 1 display full screen thing is a driver issue. They (NVidia and AMD) only support 1 application at a time that way.

Huh?

I just ran my iBook with Quicktime fullscreen on my iBook's built-in screen, and was reading this thread on the second screen.

The secret? I was running Leopard 10.5.8.

[Spheric Harlot]

dp.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by boy8cookie 

Are you seriously defending the way fullscreen apps behave in a multi monitor setup?

Yes, I am.

The real problem with fullscreen mode is that they didn't just disable it when you have multiple monitors attached.

It makes no sense with multiple displays, and that's not what it was designed for.

Mind you, I still think it's complete bullshit that they added it at all.

[ajprice]

OS X on a Retina MBP running at 2880x1800 - MacBook Pro with Retina Display: Putting the video to the test | Macworld

[Eug]

Retina vs. non-retina:



Pixel-doubling vs. retina:



Pixelpalooza: 15″ Retina MacBook Pro reviewed | Ars Technica

[Eug]

AT reviews the MBP:TNG:

AnandTech - The next-gen MacBook Pro with Retina Display Review

The internals are easily the best collection of parts Apple has ever assembled. Ivy Bridge and Kepler are natural fits, but shipping the machine with 8GB of memory by default is a much appreciated gesture especially considering its un-upgradeable nature. For the first time in Apple’s history of shipping NAND flash based storage in Macs, I actually have no complaints about the controller choice in the rMBP. Samsung’s PM830 (or the consumer, SSD 830, version) is what I’ve been recommending to Mac users for much of the past year. It’s still possible that you’ll end up with a non-Samsung controller, and I don’t yet know whether or not that’s a bad thing, but this is at least progress.

The connectivity story on the rMBP is near perfect. The pair of Thunderbolt ports allows extra flexibility as well as the ability to drive more bandwidth to external IO than any prior portable Mac. The Thunderbolt teething issues still remain unfortunately, but it looks like that’s going to require at least a partial act of Intel to rectify. USB 3.0 is a welcome addition to the Mac family. It took both Apple and Intel far too long to get to this point, but I’m glad it’s here.

All of this is really just wrapping however, as the real gift is the MacBook Pro’s first Retina Display. It’s easily the most beautiful display I’ve had the opportunity of using. Even more impressive to me than the iPad’s Retina Display, and enough to make me actually want to use the Mac as a portable when at home rather than tethered to an external panel. The added portability of the chassis likely contributes to that fact though.

Glare - 2010 glossy MBP, 2012 MTP:TNG, 2011 matte MBP:

[P]

That last picture is very interesting, because it seems to be in a very bright setting. While the reflections are sharper on the TNG MBP than on the matte one, the display content is clearly visible.

[Eug]

Yes the claim it isn't quite as glare prone is apparently true. MBP:TNG on the right.

[Spheric Harlot]

BTW, it might be noted that the "MacBook Pro" is probably going away, as evidenced by the lack of lettering on the new machines.

Apple is consolidating them into a single line, starting from the top.

[Eug]

Has anyone tried FW target mode via the dongle? Just curious if it works.

[Stevesong]

I guess we've all had different experiences. I've owned Macs since 1989 starting with the IICX and every one of these Macs was equipped with third party RAM and, yet, none of them ever exhibited a problem that was demonstrably attributable to that RAM.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Has anyone tried FW target mode via the dongle? Just curious if it works.

The FireWire dongle isn't available yet, is it? Anyway, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work, since a Mac booted into Target Mode just looks like a normal FireWire hard drive to other devices.

[boy8cookie]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Yes, I am.

The real problem with fullscreen mode is that they didn't just disable it when you have multiple monitors attached.

It makes no sense with multiple displays, and that's not what it was designed for.

Mind you, I still think it's complete bullshit that they added it at all.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by boy8cookie 

Which part are you rolling your eyes at?

The part where I stated the obvious, or the part where I said that full-screen mode is bullshit?

[boy8cookie]

Your entire response is ridiculous. How is disabling it with multi monitor setup a better solution than making it work? The solution is simple: use Spaces, allow me to drag each fullscreen app to whatever monitor, in whatever space.

What do you think fullscreen mode was designed for, exactly? Maybe that'd explain why you think it a 'bullshit' feature.

[Veltliner]

What about the scrolling lag? Is it really so noticeable as people say it is?

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

What about the scrolling lag? Is it really so noticeable as people say it is?

It's bloody noticeable man. I can see the stutter when I maximize windows from the dock.

[freudling]

I hate to say this but in some areas it's fast but in other areas it feels like a PB Wallstreet with no hardware acceleration in OS X.

Sluggish sluggish sluggish. For instance, minimizing windows is ok. But when you maximize a window from the dock you can see it stutter slightly and the traces of windows. Another thing I noticed: clicking on a setting in system preferences... it's also choppy loading into the appropriate setting screen. There's the slight delay after a click and then the stutter.

It's too bad. 1 GB GPU... whatever's happening, it's sluggish. I guess the explanation is that it's trying to move too many pixels and it's choking. I'm sure they can better optimize the OS and the graphics driver. But something's up here.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by boy8cookie 

Your entire response is ridiculous. How is disabling it with multi monitor setup a better solution than making it work? The solution is simple: use Spaces, allow me to drag each fullscreen app to whatever monitor, in whatever space.

What do you think fullscreen mode was designed for, exactly? Maybe that'd explain why you think it a 'bullshit' feature.

I think it's a bullshit feature because it brings nothing really useful to the table, at the expense of destroying the depth of space that made the layered interface possible. This encouraged multi-tasking and drag-and-drop as a fundamental part of the interface design.

This is *gone* when you enter full-screen mode, and I'm not sure why this is desirable under any circumstance beyond pure media consumption (such as watching a video). It's completely idiotic on a 27" screen.

My pet theory is that it's implemented to appease the masses of influxing Windows dweebs who are used to it (as it was necessary under Windows due to brain-dead menu placement). Those were always the guys who'd maximize Safari windows on our demo machines, resulting in six inches of text surrounded by huge swaths of completely wasted white space.

Full-screen mode brings some advantages to small-screen machines, and it does allow distraction-free work in some circumstances (assuming you're working in a darkened room without windows), but it's pointless and confusing for multiple-monitor setups (the question of which monitor the menu bar is hidden on, and which monitor is the currently "active" one being two rather massive snags), while the savings are merely pointless on anything with more than, say, 15" of screen space.

Full-screen mode is not designed for multiple monitors. You want to whine about that, or just deal with the fact that it wouldn't offer *anything* beyond what you've always had, anyway (apart from saving about 15 points at the top of one of those monitors)?

[P]

Originally Posted by freudling 

I hate to say this but in some areas it's fast but in other areas it feels like a PB Wallstreet with no hardware acceleration in OS X.

Sluggish sluggish sluggish. For instance, minimizing windows is ok. But when you maximize a window from the dock you can see it stutter slightly and the traces of windows. Another thing I noticed: clicking on a setting in system preferences... it's also choppy loading into the appropriate setting screen. There's the slight delay after a click and then the stutter.

It's too bad. 1 GB GPU... whatever's happening, it's sluggish. I guess the explanation is that it's trying to move too many pixels and it's choking. I'm sure they can better optimize the OS and the graphics driver. But something's up here.

Is this in the regular "Retina" mode, or is it zoomed in or out? One of the zoomed modes will be a lot more graphics intensive.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by P 

Is this in the regular "Retina" mode, or is it zoomed in or out? One of the zoomed modes will be a lot more graphics intensive.

It's on "Best for Retina" mode. The default set up.

I also just noticed selecting a top site in Safari... the scale animation as it opens is also choppy. Arrrrgh.