This is bone-headed, but predictable. Apple has become the fisher price of computer companies.
The Xserve fiasco. The FCP fiasco. The Mac "Pro" using a 2-yr old architecture fiasco. Now this.
Apple, you need an enterprise division...a 'pro' division if you will. Apple could make major bank by NOT shafting pro users. I mean, NeXT used to do really well in enterprise, and Apple used to own the professional video editing market. Why did you even bother to buy Shake?
One would think Apple is a big enough company to provide an equivalent to the EliteBook 8740w. Oh, HP is so nice they provide an IPS screen as an option. Suck on that, Apple, or should I say, Apple users.
It has to be supported by the OS. I can't see windows 8 suddenly adopting this out of the blue, but i can see them trying to clone it in windows 9.
The fundamental technologies required to achieve stated goal of a retina display (namely, making a visual interface element take up exactly the same number of square inches on a 300+ dpi monitor as it would on a 96 dpi monitor) are already fully deployed on the Windows side of the rift. They have been since at least Windows Vista.
However, Microsoft's implementation of resolution independence is not as comprehensive as Apple's, and Apple has patented its implementation. Many of Microsoft's native display elements (such as True Type fonts, buttons, window decorations, etc) are rendered as vectors rather than raster images and will be displayed with maximum smoothness on super high resolution displays. Other display elements, including but not limited to developer-supplied graphics, may be raster images which would simply be scaled up by default; unless the developer goes out of his way to smooth out these display elements as the they are scaled, they will suffer from visible artifacts when used on ultra high resolution displays.
Apple announced that the Xserve was EOL...but not that the 17" MBP was EOL'd. A lot of this reminds me of the wailing going on regarding Apple dropping firewire because it was missing on MacBooks...then again they dropped the white macbook without any fanfare.
Still I think that the 17" would have been worth an official mention in passing by someone. Given we can fully expect a 13" retina MBP at some point (something else Apple didn't mention) I think we can hope for a retina 17" MBP still.
It has to be supported by the OS. I can't see windows 8 suddenly adopting this out of the blue, but i can see them trying to clone it in windows 9.
Resolutions aren't supported by the OS anyway. They're supported by the hardware and driver. There are displays that support 2560x1600 available, but they use the extra pixels for screen space, not image quality.
Most video cards can run two of these displays as a single desktop, so horsepower driving the pixels isn't the problem - it's lack of offerings by manufacturers, presumably due to a historic lack of demand. People complain (here for example) that the text is too small at high resolutions, but of course, that is OS dependent. Mac OS auto-adjusts text size based on the display size and resolution to keep the text to the correct scale, which allows Retina displays to work without any special support needed. Text sizes are adjustable in Windows, though this does require a little more work on the part of the user; Windows would probably do something similar to the Mac OS, had Apple not patented the idea.
As much as I love my MBP 17”early 2009, I can’t think of leaving it soon. Though Apple has not officially said that they have discontinued 17”, my fingers are crossed.
I just can’t think of any legitimate excuse why the heck they would discontinue 17" MPBs. As graphic designer as well as a photographer, I need a big screen so I could do my job when I am on road or at least do some real touch ups. How about those musicians and composers who use their MBP 17”on recordings in studios as well as live in concerts. Will they be able to read it well enough standing 2-3 feet away on live shows? I am 45 and already tired by zooming all the time just to read the text and now with 15” I don’t know what am I gonna do.
Where is audio line in on Retina 15 incher? How do I record my 180/200 gram LPs?
It will be so damaging to me not to get 17” anymore as far as I am concerned. I am not a casual user of computers to use it only for browsing, emails, chatting, and other fun stuff. My 17” pays my bills.
My company normally buys new computers on a three year cycle. We just bought 17 inch macbook pro's one year ago. If they do release the 17 inch retina macbook pro's we will purchase those immediately. If not, will continue on our 3 year purchase cycle. A 17 inch workspace is more important than a smaller workspace with a retina display. in our office environment we hook to external monitors for dual monitor use, but on the road, we just have the macbook pro,s and the monitors stay behind.
My company normally buys new computers on a three year cycle. We just bought 17 inch macbook pro's one year ago. If they do release the 17 inch retina macbook pro's we will purchase those immediately. If not, will continue on our 3 year purchase cycle. A 17 inch workspace is more important than a smaller workspace with a retina display. in our office environment we hook to external monitors for dual monitor use, but on the road, we just have the macbook pro,s and the monitors stay behind.
I found the 17" to be a PITA on the road. Fear of it being crushed on the tray table, didn't fit into hotel safes, more limited selection of bags that would hold the thing, etc.
If I still did a lot of travel I'd go with a 15" MBP Retina, an Airport Express, an aTV, an iPad running AirDisplay or DisplayPad and a mouse.
Use the iPad as a second monitor for tools and other stuff. As an offboard display it's more space than the difference between the MBP 17" and MBP 15". Also handy to use you need to show someone something in the next room or space over. Just mirror the desktop and hand it to them.
Pair it using the Airport Express if no wireless network is available or it sucks which it often did...so Airport to ethernet vs hotel wireless or in bridge mode.
The aTV is something of a luxury and optional but it's not that big. But it's handy to connect to projectors and HDTVs on the customer site when your mDP to HDMI cable wont reach.
/shrug
If a 17" contiguous display is all that critical then yeah, it's critical. For most road warriors, not so much now that iPads can be used as secondary displays.
If you are interested in getting a 17 inch macbook pro with retina display, I would encourage you to give that feedback to Apple. You may do so by visiting the following website:
Thanks for the tip on iPad running AirDisplay or DisplayPad. I do take my iPad as well as my 17 inch pro on trips. I often use them independent, writing apps and books and then test on the iPad, or facetimeing on the iPad while co-ordinating work on the pro with co-workers, but I will give AirDisplay a try.
If you are interested in getting a 17 inch macbook pro with retina display, I would encourage you to give that feedback to Apple. You may do so by visiting the following website:
I did purchase AirDisplay. It works to increase work space but the text is so small it is hard to read. I would much rather have the 17 inch retina display.
I did purchase AirDisplay. It works to increase work space but the text is so small it is hard to read. I would much rather have the 17 inch retina display.
Ah...if you have the iPad 3 make sure you have HiDPI 1024x768 turned on in Lion...or yah everything is tiny. Or force it into 1024x768 vs the native resolution in System Preferences.
If it's STILL too tiny...ah...I have no idea. I still have an older iPad.
There are other limitations too...it's a software display so anything that uses hardware rendering doesn't work right. But for tool palettes it works well enough.
Today I spent some time working on an After Effects project. My three-year-old MacBook Pro felt like a tortoise. Apparently CS6 expects more than a 3GHz C2D with 8GB RAM, so I guess it's time to upgrade. But to what? That After Effects screen has my 17" display bursting at the seams. Looking at it today I tried to imagine working on the same project but with an even smaller screen. Forget it.
So what options exist these days? I need the machine to be portable so a desktop is out, but I'd like it to be as close to a desktop replacement as possible. It doesn't need to be so slim I can slip it between the pages of a magazine that I'm too tech kewl to carry because paper publications are so 2009, nor does it need to be so light I can hang it on my lanyard with my security pass. It needs to be as BIG as is practical within the confines of what can be reasonably carried from place to place. In other words, I seem to want an AntiApple. Instead of wanting to explore how small a device can be made before it becomes useless, I want to see how big we can make it before I just can't carry it anymore.
Today I spent some time working on an After Effects project. My three-year-old MacBook Pro felt like a tortoise. Apparently CS6 expects more than a 3GHz C2D with 8GB RAM, so I guess it's time to upgrade. But to what? That After Effects screen has my 17" display bursting at the seams. Looking at it today I tried to imagine working on the same project but with an even smaller screen. Forget it.
It sounds like the problem, in your case, is After Effects, not the computer. Adobe writes sloppy code.
It sounds like the problem, in your case, is After Effects, not the computer. Adobe writes sloppy code.
DAMN man, you just blew my mind! The computer is an entity unto itself, with intrinsic value completely unrelated to the software it was designed to run! It doesn't matter if I can't get any work done, the computer is still AWESOME, right?!
Thanks dude! I'm gonna quit using After Effects immediately. Then my "problem" will be solved. Oh wait, no it won't, since I still won't be getting any fucking WORK done, will I?
So anyway, that now takes care of the fanboy non-sequiturs, does anyone have any actual useful suggestions?
DAMN man, you just blew my mind! The computer is an entity unto itself, with intrinsic value completely unrelated to the software it was designed to run! It doesn't matter if I can't get any work done, the computer is still AWESOME, right?!
Thanks dude! I'm gonna quit using After Effects immediately. Then my "problem" will be solved. Oh wait, no it won't, since I still won't be getting any fucking WORK done, will I?
So anyway, that now takes care of the fanboy non-sequiturs, does anyone have any actual useful suggestions?
Not with that attitude, we don't. Looks like you've already decided to buy a PC, so have at it.
Comments
This is bone-headed, but predictable. Apple has become the fisher price of computer companies.
The Xserve fiasco. The FCP fiasco. The Mac "Pro" using a 2-yr old architecture fiasco. Now this.
Apple, you need an enterprise division...a 'pro' division if you will. Apple could make major bank by NOT shafting pro users. I mean, NeXT used to do really well in enterprise, and Apple used to own the professional video editing market. Why did you even bother to buy Shake?
One would think Apple is a big enough company to provide an equivalent to the EliteBook 8740w. Oh, HP is so nice they provide an IPS screen as an option. Suck on that, Apple, or should I say, Apple users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert
It has to be supported by the OS. I can't see windows 8 suddenly adopting this out of the blue, but i can see them trying to clone it in windows 9.
The fundamental technologies required to achieve stated goal of a retina display (namely, making a visual interface element take up exactly the same number of square inches on a 300+ dpi monitor as it would on a 96 dpi monitor) are already fully deployed on the Windows side of the rift. They have been since at least Windows Vista.
However, Microsoft's implementation of resolution independence is not as comprehensive as Apple's, and Apple has patented its implementation. Many of Microsoft's native display elements (such as True Type fonts, buttons, window decorations, etc) are rendered as vectors rather than raster images and will be displayed with maximum smoothness on super high resolution displays. Other display elements, including but not limited to developer-supplied graphics, may be raster images which would simply be scaled up by default; unless the developer goes out of his way to smooth out these display elements as the they are scaled, they will suffer from visible artifacts when used on ultra high resolution displays.
Apple announced that the Xserve was EOL...but not that the 17" MBP was EOL'd. A lot of this reminds me of the wailing going on regarding Apple dropping firewire because it was missing on MacBooks...then again they dropped the white macbook without any fanfare.
Still I think that the 17" would have been worth an official mention in passing by someone. Given we can fully expect a 13" retina MBP at some point (something else Apple didn't mention) I think we can hope for a retina 17" MBP still.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
Quote:
They didn't, it's 16*10. 2880*1800. 1800/10=180. 180*16=2880.
2880x1800 would be 16x10. But 2800x1800, which the original post states (well, "2,800 by 1.800"), is 14x9.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert
It has to be supported by the OS. I can't see windows 8 suddenly adopting this out of the blue, but i can see them trying to clone it in windows 9.
Resolutions aren't supported by the OS anyway. They're supported by the hardware and driver. There are displays that support 2560x1600 available, but they use the extra pixels for screen space, not image quality.
Most video cards can run two of these displays as a single desktop, so horsepower driving the pixels isn't the problem - it's lack of offerings by manufacturers, presumably due to a historic lack of demand. People complain (here for example) that the text is too small at high resolutions, but of course, that is OS dependent. Mac OS auto-adjusts text size based on the display size and resolution to keep the text to the correct scale, which allows Retina displays to work without any special support needed. Text sizes are adjustable in Windows, though this does require a little more work on the part of the user; Windows would probably do something similar to the Mac OS, had Apple not patented the idea.
As much as I love my MBP 17”early 2009, I can’t think of leaving it soon. Though Apple has not officially said that they have discontinued 17”, my fingers are crossed.
I just can’t think of any legitimate excuse why the heck they would discontinue 17" MPBs. As graphic designer as well as a photographer, I need a big screen so I could do my job when I am on road or at least do some real touch ups. How about those musicians and composers who use their MBP 17”on recordings in studios as well as live in concerts. Will they be able to read it well enough standing 2-3 feet away on live shows? I am 45 and already tired by zooming all the time just to read the text and now with 15” I don’t know what am I gonna do.
Where is audio line in on Retina 15 incher? How do I record my 180/200 gram LPs?
It will be so damaging to me not to get 17” anymore as far as I am concerned. I am not a casual user of computers to use it only for browsing, emails, chatting, and other fun stuff. My 17” pays my bills.
Lack of sales.
The port nearest you on the left.
Fortunately that's not what the Retina MacBook Pro is for.
And if you're not having fun with your work, why are you still doing it?
My company normally buys new computers on a three year cycle. We just bought 17 inch macbook pro's one year ago. If they do release the 17 inch retina macbook pro's we will purchase those immediately. If not, will continue on our 3 year purchase cycle. A 17 inch workspace is more important than a smaller workspace with a retina display. in our office environment we hook to external monitors for dual monitor use, but on the road, we just have the macbook pro,s and the monitors stay behind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy tomkins
My company normally buys new computers on a three year cycle. We just bought 17 inch macbook pro's one year ago. If they do release the 17 inch retina macbook pro's we will purchase those immediately. If not, will continue on our 3 year purchase cycle. A 17 inch workspace is more important than a smaller workspace with a retina display. in our office environment we hook to external monitors for dual monitor use, but on the road, we just have the macbook pro,s and the monitors stay behind.
I found the 17" to be a PITA on the road. Fear of it being crushed on the tray table, didn't fit into hotel safes, more limited selection of bags that would hold the thing, etc.
If I still did a lot of travel I'd go with a 15" MBP Retina, an Airport Express, an aTV, an iPad running AirDisplay or DisplayPad and a mouse.
Use the iPad as a second monitor for tools and other stuff. As an offboard display it's more space than the difference between the MBP 17" and MBP 15". Also handy to use you need to show someone something in the next room or space over. Just mirror the desktop and hand it to them.
Pair it using the Airport Express if no wireless network is available or it sucks which it often did...so Airport to ethernet vs hotel wireless or in bridge mode.
The aTV is something of a luxury and optional but it's not that big. But it's handy to connect to projectors and HDTVs on the customer site when your mDP to HDMI cable wont reach.
/shrug
If a 17" contiguous display is all that critical then yeah, it's critical. For most road warriors, not so much now that iPads can be used as secondary displays.
If you are interested in getting a 17 inch macbook pro with retina display, I would encourage you to give that feedback to Apple. You may do so by visiting the following website:
http://www.apple.com/feedback/macbookpro.html
Thanks for the tip on iPad running AirDisplay or DisplayPad. I do take my iPad as well as my 17 inch pro on trips. I often use them independent, writing apps and books and then test on the iPad, or facetimeing on the iPad while co-ordinating work on the pro with co-workers, but I will give AirDisplay a try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy tomkins
If you are interested in getting a 17 inch macbook pro with retina display, I would encourage you to give that feedback to Apple. You may do so by visiting the following website:
http://www.apple.com/feedback/macbookpro.html
I am and I did.
I did purchase AirDisplay. It works to increase work space but the text is so small it is hard to read. I would much rather have the 17 inch retina display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy tomkins
I did purchase AirDisplay. It works to increase work space but the text is so small it is hard to read. I would much rather have the 17 inch retina display.
Ah...if you have the iPad 3 make sure you have HiDPI 1024x768 turned on in Lion...or yah everything is tiny. Or force it into 1024x768 vs the native resolution in System Preferences.
If it's STILL too tiny...ah...I have no idea. I still have an older iPad.
There are other limitations too...it's a software display so anything that uses hardware rendering doesn't work right. But for tool palettes it works well enough.
What are you trying to use with it?
All I can say is I'm impressed with all you Mac users with such good vision.
Enjoy it, I'm happy for you!!!! My vision, not so good..I wouldn't be able to see the difference at a standard desk distance!
WE WANT THE 17 inch BACK... Some of us have vision that is not what it once was, and the 17 inch was just right. Going smaller is not an option.
The 17 pro needs a retina display and it may be the top of your line.
Today I spent some time working on an After Effects project. My three-year-old MacBook Pro felt like a tortoise. Apparently CS6 expects more than a 3GHz C2D with 8GB RAM, so I guess it's time to upgrade. But to what? That After Effects screen has my 17" display bursting at the seams. Looking at it today I tried to imagine working on the same project but with an even smaller screen. Forget it.
So what options exist these days? I need the machine to be portable so a desktop is out, but I'd like it to be as close to a desktop replacement as possible. It doesn't need to be so slim I can slip it between the pages of a magazine that I'm too tech kewl to carry because paper publications are so 2009, nor does it need to be so light I can hang it on my lanyard with my security pass. It needs to be as BIG as is practical within the confines of what can be reasonably carried from place to place. In other words, I seem to want an AntiApple. Instead of wanting to explore how small a device can be made before it becomes useless, I want to see how big we can make it before I just can't carry it anymore.
Suggestions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
Today I spent some time working on an After Effects project. My three-year-old MacBook Pro felt like a tortoise. Apparently CS6 expects more than a 3GHz C2D with 8GB RAM, so I guess it's time to upgrade. But to what? That After Effects screen has my 17" display bursting at the seams. Looking at it today I tried to imagine working on the same project but with an even smaller screen. Forget it.
It sounds like the problem, in your case, is After Effects, not the computer. Adobe writes sloppy code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadbag
It sounds like the problem, in your case, is After Effects, not the computer. Adobe writes sloppy code.
DAMN man, you just blew my mind! The computer is an entity unto itself, with intrinsic value completely unrelated to the software it was designed to run! It doesn't matter if I can't get any work done, the computer is still AWESOME, right?!
Thanks dude! I'm gonna quit using After Effects immediately. Then my "problem" will be solved. Oh wait, no it won't, since I still won't be getting any fucking WORK done, will I?
So anyway, that now takes care of the fanboy non-sequiturs, does anyone have any actual useful suggestions?
Not with that attitude, we don't. Looks like you've already decided to buy a PC, so have at it.