27” Retina math
marco.org
marco.org
But, since I hate incorrect terminology, this is wrong:
4K = 3840×2160
The TV industry is using 3840 because it has four times the resolution on 1080p. I don't think there are any specifications for this resolution, so there's no official term. I've heard it called QuadHD or 4xHD though.
1. There is one exception, which is 3996x2160 (1.89:1 aspect) but all the others are 4096.
My first Retina screen had horrible image persistence problems. The replacement from Apple now has the same problems. Coincidence? In the Munich Apple Store I had the opportunity to check four machines (of the seven they had standing around), all four had the exact same problem.
Apple can't build them now, they really shouldn't try to build more of them.
If we can't be a little honest about a company that is (I believe) bigger than Wal-mart then I don't know what company WOULD be strong enough to withstand mild criticism.
It would be great if they could fix this issue. I would be overjoyed. However, they seem to be unable to, now even going so far as talking the defect down.
Unacceptable to who? The products in question are selling by the millions. Clearly, the market finds them very acceptable. In the grand scheme of things, what you think is largely irrelevant.
I mean, how deluded can you be to talk down this problem? It’s a defect product, pure and simple.
Is the retina display "defect" a significantly different thing? (I can't tell from any of the commentary I've heard whether its a "permanent, irreversible screen change", or a temporary "ghosting" of previous display only persistent over a few second/minute/hours timescale.)
I mean, Apple seems to agree, at least for now. Every single Apple employee I talked to immediately recognised it as an obvious and unacceptable defect. (The one employee I showed it to first exclaimed “Holy shit!”, I didn’t even have to say anything beyond “Could you please hide the Safari window?”) And that’s what it is.
That must be why he bought one.
And it’s a damn shame, actually. In every other respect the MBPr is an awesome machine. (Also, I never had any problems with first gen Apple products. All through the last ten years Apple has been excellent in releasing pretty great first gen models.)
I'm not suggesting that what you say is not true, but I am interested in learning more about what rights you think you have in respect of this issue.
I'm from the UK, and our "Sale of Goods Act" states that goods must be:
- "as described",
- "of satisfactory quality", and
= "fit for purpose" (including any specific purpose that you agreed with the seller)
Summary of UK law, for those who are interested:
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/underst...
I find it interesting that since 2006, the three Screens I've purchased have had 0 bad pixels. And, in general, people are reporting significantly fewer LCDs with bad pixels (either always on or always off).
With regards to your Mac - was it within the first 30 days? Is Apple now allowing returns for a single bad pixel?
One nice thing about the Retina Display MBPro - a single dead pixel is probably irrelevant - you'll never notice.
The test is quite easy but you wouldn’t notice the defect just like that. Change the background to the dark grey, open up Safari, leave it in one place for two minutes, hide the window. The outline of the address bar was very clearly recognisable on all four machines I tested in the Munich Apple Store.
It’s a bit harder to see on colourful background and you need more than two minutes, but it’s definitely also visible there.
With my replacement the image retention defect also only showed up after one week of daily use.
I think it’s very likely that a large number (likely quite a few more than one percent) are affected by this problem. I think it’s exceedingly unlikely that this is not a problem with shoddy quality control.
So if you test it with a freshly booted up machine you won't see it.
If it bothers you severely, get a cheap USB fan and cool the screen. (Although that may be more annoying than the persistence......)
I’m astonished by the acceptance of this defect by so many people. I do not get it. That’s unacceptable.
It doesn't bother me though.
Yes, this could very easily be a coincidence and not at all representative of the defect manifestation rates.
As I see it this seems to be a massive issue Apple does not have under control. I mean, if it were a problem with a bad batch, why was my replacement screen also affected?
I can only work with what I have access to. And what I have access to makes the situation look very dire indeed.
As you see it I don't see how you can claim it's massive.
> I mean, if it were a problem with a bad batch, why was my replacement screen also affected?
Maybe it was from the same batch?
It’s a massive fucking problem.
The same was said about "Antennagate", but the actual impact was pretty minimal.
The employees in the Apple Store know about the issue even before I arrived, the Apple Care guy I talked to knew about the issue before I brought it up (there is just no word yet from higher up) … this is very likely a big fucking deal. Antennagate shit, only this time with an actual defect.
Thus all Retina screens are fine, and any defects must be a minor problem.
Alternatively I could realise that my local store make up a tiny % of the global market and I can't make generalisations without a more substantial sample.
I get you aren't happy you got a bad screen. But the sky isn't falling.
Thunderbolt layers a few lanes of PCIe with a DisplayPort 1.2 signal. DisplayPort 1.2 supports QFHD at 30 bits/pixel and 60Hz.
Of course you'd be limited to one display per port, and I'm not sure whether that much bandwidth on the DisplayPort lanes would crowd out the PCIe traffic.
Alternatively (as anyone who bought Macs in the 90's can attest), Apple has never been particularly reluctant to introduce a new interconnect when it was convenient for them.
Obviously if they simply pixel-doubled their current 27" panel it would be far beyond Thunderbolt's capabilities, which may be where the "Thunderbolt can't support Retina resolutions" idea originated.
I expect there have to be some, but I'm having a hard time recalling similar schemes from other companies that weren't met with ridicule.
Point is, it may be something that is conceptually simple and technologically practical but if company X bets their flagship product on the tech and ends up being the driving force in the mainstream adoption of said technology, then I think they get to brand it.
:)
I believe a big part of "Retina" working is the simple, flowing, suggestive name.
Sony achieved this with "Walkman".
Motorola got it with "RAZR".
Samsung is right there with "Note", and "Galaxy" would be a great qualifier but has become a bit diluted by being stamped on everything. (In my opinion, Galaxy should have been transitioned to the ultimate qualifier to let people know that it's a premier, high-end product.)
Stuff like "Super AMOLED Plus" and your "Windows ThinkDensity MotoDisplay Technology 8" there is madness.
Your choice of Sony is ironic, because Sony names every damn feature on their products. I could replace "retina" in your comment with "MotionFlow" and complain that Sony is tricking consumers into buying their TVs.
But at least us, as people who understand retina simply means "high enough PPI", should not argue about whether a particular display qualifies as retina or not. Because it is subjective to decide how much PPI is enough for each type of product and there is no actual numerical barrier that we can agree upon. It is meaningless to discuss whether Galaxy Nexus display (315 ppi) qualifies as retina. It is simply a 315-ppi display.
"315ppi" or "super high ppi" is meaningless to me even as a techie because for me the gold standard for text clarity is 600dpi on laser printed paper, so even though it's adequate for the screen, it wouldn't impress me unless I saw it.
"Looks like glossy magazine print" makes sense to any consumer. Again, yes in this case Retina happens to coincide with the trademark, but it's also a functional property, one that's relavant to the discussion.
1. They only name important features. 2. They give the spotlight to only one new feature at a time and they make it the cornerstone of their marketing efforts. 3. They are consistent across their entire product line.
That why almost everybody knows the word unibody. Now everyone knows the word retina.
It's genuinely impressive how they successfully put together all the things that you mention and at least a handful more while others juggle incredibly cumbersome, abstract names.
The power of these things seem obvious to me, but the fact that only Apple pulls it off suggests that I'm nuts.
I then wondered how the OS & Window Manager & Applications & video driver & memory bus & pci bus & video card deal with the respective parts of their chunks of a data stream that big… (Then managed to realize I've got work to do before heading down the google-research-of-interesting-thing rabbit hole…)
I think someday even a 640x480 laptop screen will someday be a 'retina' resolution for my unaided eyes.