“Don’t buy this computer.”
marco.org
marco.org
That means even if you are getting a scaled down resolution of 1440×900, the real resolution of the display is still obscenely high. Everything is MUCH sharper than on the regular displays. The fonts are gorgeous.
I own a 15" rMBP. I can change the scaled resolution to 1680×1050 or 1920×1200, without loss of details. Seriously, there is no fuzziness or anything sort of BS like that. I think Marco needs glasses.
One problem with this laptop is with non-retina ready apps and some websites. Since the display is at such a high resolution, smaller images will appear a bit blurry (because of the upscaling algorithms), but its really not that bad. Non-retina ready apps will look pixelated, and it sucks. But most popular apps are retina-ready, so again, it's not a big problem.
Another problem is because you are rendering stuff at such a high resolution, there may be performance issues in some apps. Most of them were optimized for this (e.g. sublime text 2).
You speak the truth. The original article is hogwash and should be ignored with prejudice.
Applications that are get the full 2560x1600 resolution. Applications that don't, don't; instead, they get 1280x800 by default, for an 1:2 upscaling. If you want, you can change that number, of course at a performance cost.
People are complaining because even most of the apps that are DPI-aware (Chrome, etc.) don't offer a way to change the physical size of their chrome, but that isn't really Apple's fault.
Think of this like vector graphics. You can enlarge them without getting pixelation. This is, I think, what scaling does.
What is noteworthy is that the direction Apple is headed is toward competing on specifications such as pixel count rather than functional design.
Retina branding is in no small part about competing on pixel count. It is not significantly about competing on productivity.
Personally, if I am admiring the rendering of fonts on my screen, either the content is less than compelling or I am graphically designing with inadequate attention to a real world audience.
It's interesting that in this iteration, it seems that these qualities have switched product lines. The Air now seems to be the choice for professional work, for the reasons you describe in your last sentence. I do hope that as they roll out the display across their products they continue to ship a model with a larger effective@native resolution.
The quality of the Retina screen is simply better—no fanboyism, no dogma, it's just a higher quality picture, period. It's nice to read sharper fonts, it's nice that the interface scales natively, and it just looks great. It's not about "admiring" anything, it's not about being out-of-touch with the "real world audience"—it's just a higher quality piece of technology.
Furthermore, this statement from the original article is simply false:
"the 13” Retina, like the 15” Retina, can scale to a simulated 1680 × 1050, but it doesn’t look nearly as good"
As the author notes, the only problem with the higher-resolution scaling is performance, and even then the Intel 4000 integrated graphics actually still handles it with relative ease.
Apple is slightly ahead of their time here. The technology really is stunning, and in practical use it still works well. Performance is a slight issue when scaling to higher desktop areas, but the tradeoff for more real estate is more than worth it.
The truth is that the screen gives you more options for how to size and use your display, not fewer as this article seems to imply. The limitations are slight, and in this and future models, software and hardware will surely continue to improve.
In short: the death of the high-dpi display has been greatly exaggerated. Don't pay attention to this FUD, just try one yourself for an extended period of time.
Different people have different needs. Some will engage in tasks which entail functional system performance; others tasks which entail gazing at their screen in admiration.
There may not be a single product which meets both their needs.
My point was that your argument was silly and pretentious, and I stand by that, because you say things like "gazing at their screen in admiration" in an insulting fashion, as if those who appreciate a good detailed and bright display somehow have trivial and laughable requirements.
I don't claim that there is a single product that meets these needs, but I do claim that the arguments brought on this product specifically by you and the original author are baseless.
In other words, you're welcome to criticize the product all you want based on your requirements, but don't pass it off as though your snarky analysis is valuable in any objective way.
I find the way in which Apple brands it's widgets far more interesting than their specifications due to the way in which that branding affects online discourse.
For example, your "argument" is centered on specifications of components rather than productivity in a way which parallels Apple's branding - to the point where your "argument" depends upon ignoring computing performance.
Objectively, there is nothing wrong with valuing one set of specifications (display resolution) over another (computational benchmarks). But objectively, there is nothing right about it either.
Except of course as it applies to an individual case. Pointing out that individual cases are the basis for determining what is better, is expedited by pointing to an absurd example. Perhaps, the one I chose was not absurd enough.
I am far from a UI/UX expert, but I (and many others I've read about [e.g. see cstross in another comment]) have the experience that "retina displays" make a very big difference for text [readability].
If you really have good references to support your claim my experience is marketing bullshit, I'm very interested.
(Personally, I think HN has degenerated to FUD wars over tablets the last week(s). At least increase quality.)
That's not to say that Retina isn't innovative. Delivering such a display at the price point and quantities that Apple is, is a feat of logistics. Apple has a real competitive advantage.
Retina displays may provide a productivity boost to some people. But that's not the basis of it's branding. The branding is a mass market appeal to hedonistic pursuits and aspirational consumption. There's nothing wrong with that.
What I have opined is that the manner in which the current focus Retina has affected Apple's branding marks a shift in the structure of their advertizing.
It has gone from emphasizing the system (e.g. "magical iPad" or "I'm a Mac") to emphasizing the specs of components, i.e. the Retina advertising logically equivalent to focusing on more RAM or a bigger Hard Drive. Fundamentally it's just numbers.
There's no direct engagement of the consumer's imagination. "Ten hours of battery" allows a person to picture themselves untethered in a Istanbul coffee shop. "More pixels" doesn't.
What matters to me is the way in which a piece of hardware facilitates or hinders my workflow. I sit a certain distance from the screen and perform certain tasks various pieces of software. A display is better or worse based upon my individual needs (and by extrapolation better for someone else based upon their individual needs, not mine).
Ultimately, I prefer a larger effective dot pitch - i.e. the lower effective resolution of the 13" Retina MacBook is probably better suited to me than the author of the article. [see my comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3667792]
On the other hand, any Macbook is a non-starter. My workflow is at critical times dependent upon more horsepower than one will find on most laptops and the software I own runs on Windows.
Having once owned a Porsche, I am not unsympathetic to people who enjoy aspirational products despite the tradoffs they entail. I was then and am today willing to admit that gazing upon it admiringly was pleasurable.
On the other hand, I have never considered my choice of automobile objectively better, except in the sense that it was right for me, and despite having been bald and in my forties at the time, I found humor in the stereo type.
They aren't saying "Now with X% more pixels", it has a name and the name means an experience: sharper text and images.
This might just be me, but I love to code like this, splitting different windows to different corners of the screen. I used to use a 30" 2560x1600, and the rMBP @ 2880x1800 lets me keep the same workflow I love on a laptop. Admittedly it takes a little getting used to and such a high res on a small screen isn't for everyone, but if you've got one, give it a try at least once.
More real estate than the old 30" cinema display, in a 15" diagonal screen. It's a miracle.
Disclaimer: I have 48 year old eyeballs with dormant peripheral retinopathy in one eye, a damaged (by surgery) fovea in the other, and a (different in each) mixture of presybyopia, myopia, astigmatism, and a squint due to muscle weakness (in the left). My eyeballs need all the tender loving care I can lavish on them, hence the rMBP. Your priorities may (and probably do) differ, but if you've got eyesight issues, this screen is simply a joy to use.
Tip: enable "Use scroll wheel with modifier keys to zoom" in Universal Access->Zoom->Options. Ctrl+scroll (ie two finger vertical swipe, or mouse wheel) will now zoom the window around your pointer. It's a massive help for tired eyes; you can just enlarge the stuff you're working on. I don't have to go in far for it to make a huge difference. (I found it somewhat humbling to have a legitimate need for an accessibility feature.)
Theres a level of flexibility and choice I didn't realise I wanted until I got used to quickly switching between scaled the various default osx scaling and full native res at the drop of a hat, to suit whatever I'm doing.
I really hope comprehensive support for high res displays lands in Windows at some point.
I'd expect the native 1920x1080 to actually yield a sharper image than retina scaled down.
I realize Apple doesn't provide a native 1920x1080, but it's not hard to find in non-Apple 15" laptops, at an easy $1,000 cost savings for higher-performance components (but less thin-and-light).
IMO it looks much better. Only rasterized objects are scaled. Fonts and native components still render at full DPI.
> I realize Apple doesn't provide a native 1920x1080, but it's not hard to find in non-Apple 15" laptops, at an easy $1,000 cost savings for higher-performance components (but less thin-and-light).
Good luck finding one with equal or better build quality that will run a POSIX OS flawlessly (no driver issues, no hacking configs or recompiling, etc) and costs $1000 less. I looked at a lot of other hardware before buying my 15" rMBP and couldn't find anything that measured up.
I'm thinking of getting the 27" Apple one, but waiting to see if they would release a retina-resolution anytime soon.
Dont get the Apple display - just get a Korean knock off with the same panel for a quarter of the price...
Gorgeous body would be great.
What monitor would you suggest?
Edit: and you found it.
Just something to keep in mind when you're budgeting.
I would love to find a cheap monitor which used the same panel as the iMac and had similar image quality. Any pointers?
No doubt there are better deals but if say the premium is $350 over a 3 year lifetime (at least) it's a few starbucks coffees or meals out per year for something I use hours per day :)
The 17" sold poorly, but was it because of the size or the weight? If it was the weight, maybe there's a chance.
If they brought it back, I'd be afraid to ask what kind of GPU it takes to drive a 17" Retina screen on a laptop.