You think? My reaction was "meh." Better, sure, but not a deal-breaker either way.
I haven't checked... have Illustrator and After Effects been updated with Retina compatibility? If not, that IS a deal-breaker, because if you wanna talk about "look crap," try a non-optimized app on a Retina display. Ick.
So it does make a difference or it doesn't make a difference? It's not immediate but use one for a while then go back to non-Retina. After an afternoon with an rMBP I can hardly look at my iMac anymore.
Retina on Macbook is the stupidest idea of Apple ever - this is too small for the eyes, considering that Apple's latest Mac OS X doesn't even have function of system-wide font size changing to the bigger size (i checked, only stupid magnify loop) like on Win XP and etc. Such small details are really hurting the eyes of the users. Even the previous generation display on my Macbook Pro 17 - the "high-resolution" is providing too small details, fonts and etc. - without connecting additional bigger display working on Macbook is just dangerous for the health of my eyes - any doctor can confirm that eyestrain cause headaches. This is very strange marketing move considering that most planet population is rapidly aging with degrading of the eye vision.
Of course such high-density pixels displays is the move to sell on same premium prices without depreciation of the final price, but the reason of 4K on such laptops is very skeptical - current Macbooks are not suitable for 4K, to work with 4K content flawlessly Macbooks need much more processing power and very fast storage, so 4K maybe only in 2015-16th, but not today, too early - too slow.
What happened to the new Mac Pro that was supposed to be announced this spring? Or all we all just expected to have amnesia because it's the great and glorious Apple?
Shut up, concern troll. The Mac Pro was never "supposed" to be announced in spring.
Originally Posted by fsad32
Retina on Macbook is the stupidest idea of Apple ever - this is too small for the eyes…
THAT'S THE IDEA BEHIND A RETINA DISPLAY. Please don't talk about things when you know absolutely nothing about them.
…considering that Apple's latest Mac OS X doesn't even have function of system-wide font size changing to the bigger size (i checked, only stupid magnify loop)…
I dunno… the retina MacBook Pro sure LOOKS like it changes things proportionally. I guess looking at something before talking about it is probably too weird.
Such small details are really hurting the eyes of the users.
Go away with your false concern nonsense.
Even the previous generation display on my Macbook Pro 17 - the "high-resolution" is providing too small details, fonts and etc. - without connecting additional bigger display working on Macbook is just dangerous for the health of my eyes - any doctor can confirm that eyestrain cause headaches.
Hey, are you just the matte guy back, now come to extoll the virtues of lower-resolution screens? Give me a freaking break.
So it does make a difference or it doesn't make a difference?
Based only on the 15 minutes or so I spent comparing while waiting for my turn at the Genius Bar, my reaction was that the Retina display looks better than the standard display, but not so much better that it would matter to me one way or the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
I think Illustrator has but not AE.
You're right. Illustrator and Photoshop have been updated with Retina compatibility. The other two titles I use from time to time, After Effects and InDesign, have not.
Stop making the replies if don't know what to say. Your words is not even an argument... Do you have any knowledge how to talk with other people? If you want to dispute with me - bring the facts. The fact that the latest Mac OX S don't have system font size change and the fact that Retina is much smaller picture than previous High-resolution = in the end hurting the eyes of users. The end. So, you need to learn how to dispute.
Update: Welcome to black list on my profile (by your typical behavior on other thread of humiliating other commenters), you don't need to reply on this - i won't see it.
Retina on Macbook is the stupidest idea of Apple ever - this is too small for the eyes, considering that Apple's latest Mac OS X doesn't even have function of system-wide font size changing to the bigger size (i checked, only stupid magnify loop) like on Win XP and etc. Such small details are really hurting the eyes of the users. Even the previous generation display on my Macbook Pro 17 - the "high-resolution" is providing too small details, fonts and etc. - without connecting additional bigger display working on Macbook is just dangerous for the health of my eyes - any doctor can confirm that eyestrain cause headaches. This is very strange marketing move considering that most planet population is rapidly aging with degrading of the eye vision.
Of course such high-density pixels displays is the move to sell on same premium prices without depreciation of the final price, but the reason of 4K on such laptops is very skeptical - current Macbooks are not suitable for 4K, to work with 4K content flawlessly Macbooks need much more processing power and very fast storage, so 4K maybe only in 2015-16th, but not today, too early - too slow.
Are you talking about the "Scaled" modes? Because the "Best for Retina Display" mode (the default) has the same size text as a non-Retina Macbook Pro, it's just sharper.
Stop making the replies if don't know what to say. Your words is not even an argument... Do you have any knowledge how to talk with other people? If you want to dispute with me - bring the facts. The fact that the latest Mac OX S don't have system font size change and the fact that Retina is much smaller picture than previous High-resolution = in the end hurting the eyes of users. The end. So, you need to learn how to dispute.
Update: Welcome to black list on my profile (by your typical behavior on other thread of humiliating other commenters), you don't need to reply on this - i won't see it.
Actually, the retina display is much easier on the eyes, and the picture is NOT smaller. I never thought I would agree with TS on anything, but there a first time for everything, I suppose.
Actually, the retina display is much easier on the eyes, and the picture is NOT smaller. I never thought I would agree with TS on anything, but there a first time for everything, I suppose.
The problem is that difference in such dense display can be noticeable - i have the macbook with 1920x1200 (it is the high resolution before retina) and i have connected big Cinema Display with same resolution - the only difference between them is the quantity of pixels - macbook pro display is much denser - even visually the picture or text is looking bigger on Cinema display than on macbook. You can check. It's affecting the work - i prefer the Cinema Display, the absence of text sizing is very frustrating. On the 13'' Macbook (not retina) the system font is much bigger. I don't really think that it is depends on resolution either, that's another Apple's bizarre thing - how they want you to see the interface (bigger font can destroy that fancy "design beauty" but it can save the eyes of most people - eyestrain causing the headaches, it is the medical fact).
About Retina - it's too early for such displays, there's no content for them, esp. on Internet - everything will be too small and made for low resolution display from the start.
forget about TS, he is on black list, i think most of users here.
…even visually the picture or text is looking bigger on Cinema display than on macbook.
That'd be because the pixels are smaller.
You read that right.
…the absence of text sizing is very frustrating.
I'm not sure what this is saying. There are options to resize UI text in System Preferences.
On the 13'' Macbook (not retina) the system font is much bigger.
Compared to a 13" retina, they're identical.
…it can save the eyes of most people - eyestrain causing the headaches, it is the medical fact).
So you're pushing a 27" 2560x1440 over a smoothed 15" 1440x900 because the former means… LESS… eye strain? How about a 27" 640x480? Would that be less eye strain?
Check out the math here:
2560x1440 @ 27": 108.79 ppi
1440x900 @ 15.4": 110.27 ppi
2880x1800 @ 15.4": 220.53 ppi, except the OS renders it at 4:1, meaning it's the same number of UI "pixels" as the above.
The retina MacBook Pro's operational "pixels" are LARGER THAN THE CINEMA DISPLAY'S. Never mind that there's less of a gap between them. Your argument here about small pixels = eye strain is utterly bogus since you can't seem to figure out which pixels are smaller.
About Retina - it's too early for such displays…
OBVIOUSLY NOT, SINCE THEY'RE OUT.
…there's no content for them, esp. on Internet…
1. Except there is.
2. I guess that means there shouldn't be retina displays. Oh, but hey, there aren't retina displays, so why would I make my content larger to fit them? Huh, there's no content for the retina display. Better not release it. Oops, there's no retina display; guess I don't have to make my content larger to…
Please do some thinking.
forget about TS, he is on black list, i think most of users here.
Keep your personal vendettas personal. You want to lie about me, do it in a PM or at least to my face. It's particularly insulting (har) when your argument is wrong. You say this for no reason other than you were called out by someone (who happened to be me) about your ludicrous statement that "retina displays are the stupidest idea of Apple ever".
I'm not sure what this is saying. There are options to resize UI text in System Preferences.
Compared to a 13" retina, they're identical.
So you're pushing a 27" 2560x1440 over a smoothed 15" 1440x900 because the former means… LESS… eye strain? How about a 27" 640x480? Would that be less eye strain?
Check out the math here:
2560x1440 @ 27": 108.79 ppi
1440x900 @ 15.4": 110.27 ppi
2880x1800 @ 15.4": 220.53 ppi, except the OS renders it at 4:1, meaning it's the same number of UI "pixels" as the above.
The retina MacBook Pro's operational "pixels" are LARGER THAN THE CINEMA DISPLAY'S. Never mind that there's less of a gap between them. Your argument about small pixels = eye strain is utterly bogus.
OBVIOUSLY NOT, SINCE THEY'RE OUT. :???:
1. Except there is.
2. I guess that means there shouldn't be retina displays. Oh, but hey, there aren't retina displays, so why would I make my content larger to fit them? Huh, there's no content for the retina display. Better not release it. Oops, there's no retina display; guess I don't have to make my content larger to…
Please do some thinking.
Keep your personal vendettas personal. You want to lie about me, do it in a PM or at least to my face. It's particularly insulting (har) when your argument is wrong. You say this for no reason other than you were called out by someone (who happened to be me) about your ludicrous statement that "retina displays are the stupidest idea of Apple ever".
I wouldn't even bother. He's not just someone that is incorrect about technology, but clearly so delusional about the tech that a rational and thorough response isn't going to bring any clarity.
Yes, I'm dreaming but man that would be a killer workstation class laptop.
They could release a E3 based Mac Pro and surprise everyone. Single E3-1285 3.6Ghz CPU, 4 ram slots, single double wide slot for Tesla GPU, Red Rocket or Xeon Phi, dual SSD sticks, slim profile (rackable with kit). $2299.
Yah, I'm dreaming there too.
If you're gonna build some trucks, lets build some trucks.
Yes, I'm dreaming but man that would be a killer workstation class laptop.
They could release a E3 based Mac Pro and surprise everyone. Single E3-1285 3.6Ghz CPU, 4 ram slots, single double wide slot for Tesla GPU, Red Rocket or Xeon Phi, dual SSD sticks, slim profile (rackable with kit). $2299.
Yah, I'm dreaming there too.
If you're gonna build some trucks, lets build some trucks.
Good truck, but limited visibility. Better make it 17".
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
You think? My reaction was "meh." Better, sure, but not a deal-breaker either way.
I haven't checked... have Illustrator and After Effects been updated with Retina compatibility? If not, that IS a deal-breaker, because if you wanna talk about "look crap," try a non-optimized app on a Retina display. Ick.
So it does make a difference or it doesn't make a difference? It's not immediate but use one for a while then go back to non-Retina. After an afternoon with an rMBP I can hardly look at my iMac anymore.
I think Illustrator has but not AE.
awesome
Retina on Macbook is the stupidest idea of Apple ever - this is too small for the eyes, considering that Apple's latest Mac OS X doesn't even have function of system-wide font size changing to the bigger size (i checked, only stupid magnify loop) like on Win XP and etc. Such small details are really hurting the eyes of the users. Even the previous generation display on my Macbook Pro 17 - the "high-resolution" is providing too small details, fonts and etc. - without connecting additional bigger display working on Macbook is just dangerous for the health of my eyes - any doctor can confirm that eyestrain cause headaches. This is very strange marketing move considering that most planet population is rapidly aging with degrading of the eye vision.
Of course such high-density pixels displays is the move to sell on same premium prices without depreciation of the final price, but the reason of 4K on such laptops is very skeptical - current Macbooks are not suitable for 4K, to work with 4K content flawlessly Macbooks need much more processing power and very fast storage, so 4K maybe only in 2015-16th, but not today, too early - too slow.
Originally Posted by shredx1
What happened to the new Mac Pro that was supposed to be announced this spring? Or all we all just expected to have amnesia because it's the great and glorious Apple?
Shut up, concern troll. The Mac Pro was never "supposed" to be announced in spring.
Originally Posted by fsad32
Retina on Macbook is the stupidest idea of Apple ever - this is too small for the eyes…
THAT'S THE IDEA BEHIND A RETINA DISPLAY. Please don't talk about things when you know absolutely nothing about them.
…considering that Apple's latest Mac OS X doesn't even have function of system-wide font size changing to the bigger size (i checked, only stupid magnify loop)…
I dunno… the retina MacBook Pro sure LOOKS like it changes things proportionally. I guess looking at something before talking about it is probably too weird.
Such small details are really hurting the eyes of the users.
Go away with your false concern nonsense.
Even the previous generation display on my Macbook Pro 17 - the "high-resolution" is providing too small details, fonts and etc. - without connecting additional bigger display working on Macbook is just dangerous for the health of my eyes - any doctor can confirm that eyestrain cause headaches.
Hey, are you just the matte guy back, now come to extoll the virtues of lower-resolution screens? Give me a freaking break.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
So it does make a difference or it doesn't make a difference?
Based only on the 15 minutes or so I spent comparing while waiting for my turn at the Genius Bar, my reaction was that the Retina display looks better than the standard display, but not so much better that it would matter to me one way or the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
I think Illustrator has but not AE.
You're right. Illustrator and Photoshop have been updated with Retina compatibility. The other two titles I use from time to time, After Effects and InDesign, have not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
...
Stop making the replies if don't know what to say. Your words is not even an argument... Do you have any knowledge how to talk with other people? If you want to dispute with me - bring the facts. The fact that the latest Mac OX S don't have system font size change and the fact that Retina is much smaller picture than previous High-resolution = in the end hurting the eyes of users. The end. So, you need to learn how to dispute.
Update: Welcome to black list on my profile (by your typical behavior on other thread of humiliating other commenters), you don't need to reply on this - i won't see it.
Originally Posted by fsad32
If you want to dispute with me - bring the facts.
Maybe don't claim "I can't see the pixels on a retina display; therefore the display is terrible" before talking to others about "facts".
…Retina is much smaller picture than previous High-resolution…
It was never claiming to be a "larger picture". It's an upgrade to the 1440x900 resolution of the previous model.
…in the end hurting the eyes of users.
Quite a bit of research says the opposite is true. But, again, you don't care about facts.
The end.
Will you stop posting crap now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fsad32
Retina on Macbook is the stupidest idea of Apple ever - this is too small for the eyes, considering that Apple's latest Mac OS X doesn't even have function of system-wide font size changing to the bigger size (i checked, only stupid magnify loop) like on Win XP and etc. Such small details are really hurting the eyes of the users. Even the previous generation display on my Macbook Pro 17 - the "high-resolution" is providing too small details, fonts and etc. - without connecting additional bigger display working on Macbook is just dangerous for the health of my eyes - any doctor can confirm that eyestrain cause headaches. This is very strange marketing move considering that most planet population is rapidly aging with degrading of the eye vision.
Of course such high-density pixels displays is the move to sell on same premium prices without depreciation of the final price, but the reason of 4K on such laptops is very skeptical - current Macbooks are not suitable for 4K, to work with 4K content flawlessly Macbooks need much more processing power and very fast storage, so 4K maybe only in 2015-16th, but not today, too early - too slow.
Are you talking about the "Scaled" modes? Because the "Best for Retina Display" mode (the default) has the same size text as a non-Retina Macbook Pro, it's just sharper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fsad32
Stop making the replies if don't know what to say. Your words is not even an argument... Do you have any knowledge how to talk with other people? If you want to dispute with me - bring the facts. The fact that the latest Mac OX S don't have system font size change and the fact that Retina is much smaller picture than previous High-resolution = in the end hurting the eyes of users. The end. So, you need to learn how to dispute.
Update: Welcome to black list on my profile (by your typical behavior on other thread of humiliating other commenters), you don't need to reply on this - i won't see it.
Actually, the retina display is much easier on the eyes, and the picture is NOT smaller. I never thought I would agree with TS on anything, but there a first time for everything, I suppose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Actually, the retina display is much easier on the eyes, and the picture is NOT smaller. I never thought I would agree with TS on anything, but there a first time for everything, I suppose.
The problem is that difference in such dense display can be noticeable - i have the macbook with 1920x1200 (it is the high resolution before retina) and i have connected big Cinema Display with same resolution - the only difference between them is the quantity of pixels - macbook pro display is much denser - even visually the picture or text is looking bigger on Cinema display than on macbook. You can check. It's affecting the work - i prefer the Cinema Display, the absence of text sizing is very frustrating. On the 13'' Macbook (not retina) the system font is much bigger. I don't really think that it is depends on resolution either, that's another Apple's bizarre thing - how they want you to see the interface (bigger font can destroy that fancy "design beauty" but it can save the eyes of most people - eyestrain causing the headaches, it is the medical fact).
About Retina - it's too early for such displays, there's no content for them, esp. on Internet - everything will be too small and made for low resolution display from the start.
forget about TS, he is on black list, i think most of users here.
Originally Posted by fsad32
…even visually the picture or text is looking bigger on Cinema display than on macbook.
That'd be because the pixels are smaller.
You read that right.
…the absence of text sizing is very frustrating.
I'm not sure what this is saying. There are options to resize UI text in System Preferences.
On the 13'' Macbook (not retina) the system font is much bigger.
Compared to a 13" retina, they're identical.
…it can save the eyes of most people - eyestrain causing the headaches, it is the medical fact).
So you're pushing a 27" 2560x1440 over a smoothed 15" 1440x900 because the former means… LESS… eye strain? How about a 27" 640x480? Would that be less eye strain?
Check out the math here:
2560x1440 @ 27": 108.79 ppi
1440x900 @ 15.4": 110.27 ppi
2880x1800 @ 15.4": 220.53 ppi, except the OS renders it at 4:1, meaning it's the same number of UI "pixels" as the above.
The retina MacBook Pro's operational "pixels" are LARGER THAN THE CINEMA DISPLAY'S. Never mind that there's less of a gap between them. Your argument here about small pixels = eye strain is utterly bogus since you can't seem to figure out which pixels are smaller.
About Retina - it's too early for such displays…
OBVIOUSLY NOT, SINCE THEY'RE OUT.
…there's no content for them, esp. on Internet…
1. Except there is.
2. I guess that means there shouldn't be retina displays. Oh, but hey, there aren't retina displays, so why would I make my content larger to fit them? Huh, there's no content for the retina display. Better not release it. Oops, there's no retina display; guess I don't have to make my content larger to…
Please do some thinking.
forget about TS, he is on black list, i think most of users here.
Keep your personal vendettas personal. You want to lie about me, do it in a PM or at least to my face. It's particularly insulting (har) when your argument is wrong. You say this for no reason other than you were called out by someone (who happened to be me) about your ludicrous statement that "retina displays are the stupidest idea of Apple ever".
I wouldn't even bother. He's not just someone that is incorrect about technology, but clearly so delusional about the tech that a rational and thorough response isn't going to bring any clarity.
MBP 15" Intel Xeon E3-1285L v3 3.1Ghz (45W TDP), 32GB ECC RAM (4x8GB), NVidia 750M GPU, 1.2 TB Fusion
Yes, I'm dreaming but man that would be a killer workstation class laptop.
They could release a E3 based Mac Pro and surprise everyone. Single E3-1285 3.6Ghz CPU, 4 ram slots, single double wide slot for Tesla GPU, Red Rocket or Xeon Phi, dual SSD sticks, slim profile (rackable with kit). $2299.
Yah, I'm dreaming there too.
If you're gonna build some trucks, lets build some trucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
MBP 15" Intel Xeon E3-1285L v3 3.1Ghz (45W TDP), 32GB ECC RAM (4x8GB), NVidia 750M GPU, 1.2 TB Fusion
Yes, I'm dreaming but man that would be a killer workstation class laptop.
They could release a E3 based Mac Pro and surprise everyone. Single E3-1285 3.6Ghz CPU, 4 ram slots, single double wide slot for Tesla GPU, Red Rocket or Xeon Phi, dual SSD sticks, slim profile (rackable with kit). $2299.
Yah, I'm dreaming there too.
If you're gonna build some trucks, lets build some trucks.
Good truck, but limited visibility. Better make it 17".