Just a further extreme datapoint: I just went from a 13" MBA to an 11" and am not missing the extra pixels at all, for terminal based web development. I keep the terminals, browsers, and virtual machines running the servers in full screen mode and just flick between them. Oddly, it's easier than clicking or cycling around the windows on a full sized desktop.
The smaller pixel size and my no longer young eyes conspire to make it a poor man's retina display. (Not completely, the retinas are still better, but I am less distracted by pixel edges than I was on the 13, but I couldn't by next June's machine last weekend.)
I'm still desktop bound for Xcode work, but the 13" didn't do it for me there either.
I was also not sure whether the 15" retina display would be as good as the 17" 1920x1200 display. I now use my 15" Retina in scaled 1920x1200 equivalent most of the time when I'm doing programming work (when I'm not at my desk using a large external monitor), and it's actually better than the 17" in that mode -- due to the way they did scaling, fonts and widgets render with more detail.
That said, there are situations where the 15" Retina 1920x1200 scaled is not as good as the 17": When I am sitting in bed (or maybe a couch), and the display is further away than it would be if I were sitting on a desk. In that situation it's not ideal, because the fonts become harder to see. But there are two potential solutions to that: If the app I am using supports zooming, just zoom the content (e.g. web browsers all do this) OR switch to the best-for-retina 1440x900 equivalent. I usually use best-for-retina when I'm not doing programming. But, I still have my 17" MBP, and it is my designated programming in bed laptop.
One of my favorite things about the Retina display is that I can arbitrarily choose resolutions without any perceived decrease in quality. This is something we had with CRTs, and didn't really have with LCDs until now.
Another potential downside: Apps that don't support the retina display look pretty terrible. They look best in scaled 1920x1200, but still not that great. The only app I use that doesn't support the retina display is Ableton Live (and it's entire UI is vector-based and can scale via a zoom setting, so you think it wouldn't be hard).
I was originally concerned that switching up to 1920x1200 was going to show artifacts from subpixel rendering, but that's not the case at all. Text still looks very crisp. Highly recommended.
2D scrolling isn't great at the highest resolution on the original rMBP. Tons of pixels to move around. I assume the new graphics in the latest rev improved this.
The "best for Retina" setting doubles the size of everything on the screen, effectively making the display a really crisp 1440x900. Running at native resolution everything is drawn at the standard size, which provides lots of room but also makes things hard to see on the screen because everything is so tiny.
does it bother anyone that the optical drive is no longer present in the rMBP models? i know i very rarely use my optical drive, but for some reason i feel like i would miss it. haha.
The only Mac that still has an optical drive is the inexplicably still available (it's more expensive than a MBA, and worse in most ways) 13" non-retina MBP. You can get a USB DVD drive for practically nothing, though.
I thought the same, but I don't miss it. It makes the computer much lighter it seems too, and very thin.. but not too thin where it feels flimsy or anything.
The smaller pixel size and my no longer young eyes conspire to make it a poor man's retina display. (Not completely, the retinas are still better, but I am less distracted by pixel edges than I was on the 13, but I couldn't by next June's machine last weekend.)
I'm still desktop bound for Xcode work, but the 13" didn't do it for me there either.