I recently (Finally!) purchased a new MacBook Pro but I still have & adore the 17-inch MacBook Pro that was my workhorse the past 5+ years. I really like the new one but would have preferred buying another 17-inch model except they don't make it any more so I got the 15.
He's wrong. Either he didn't make the comparison side-by-side or he has a case of novelty blinders. With both displays set to 1900x1200, the old 17" display looks better than the 15" Retina. I *think* I can make that statement as an absolute -- or is that perception subjective?
The statement that the 17" display looks better than the 15" is too generic to say in an absolute way - they guy above has both so maybe he could take photos of the two side by side at 1920. The text can't look better, nor can imagery that is higher resolution than the display. Possibly lower resolution image content. But the color reproduction isn't better, nor black levels, nor are the viewing angles. The 15" display is better in more areas than the old 17". The same issues with the 15" would be true if they made a Retina 17" anyway, though I suspect they'd be conveniently overlooked if a 17" option was available. This sort of thing happens with everything that changes, people who preferred the predecessor scrutinize and criticize the changes more heavily than they normally would in order to arrive at the conclusion they've already decided on, which is that they prefer the old one. Remember the motion sickness people with iOS 7 demanding that an iOS 6 UI option be made available.
The statement that the 17" display looks better than the 15" is too generic to say in an absolute way - they guy above has both so maybe he could take photos of the two side by side at 1920. The text can't look better, nor can imagery that is higher resolution than the display. Possibly lower resolution image content. But the color reproduction isn't better, nor black levels, nor are the viewing angles. The 15" display is better in more areas than the old 17". The same issues with the 15" would be true if they made a Retina 17" anyway, though I suspect they'd be conveniently overlooked if a 17" option was available. This sort of thing happens with everything that changes, people who preferred the predecessor scrutinize and criticize the changes more heavily than they normally would in order to arrive at the conclusion they've already decided on, which is that they prefer the old one. Remember the motion sickness people with iOS 7 demanding that an iOS 6 UI option be made available.
I think the rmbp looks better in most ways, at least judging from the ones I have seen. I don't like the higher reflectivity so much, but overall it's a bit smoother in gradation, which is to be expected with an IPS display over the older TN. Resolution is a bit higher, although the 17" is still quite good in that regard. Prior to recent 4k options, 1920x1200 was the standard resolution for 24" displays. Having that at 17" makes for some very crisp text, albeit not with quite the same feeling of sharpness achieved in the rmbp models. The biggest complaint I've noticed is one of yellowish screens, which could be poor greyscale tracking or a shift in convergent color temperature throughout its range, but I haven't had the chance to personally verify it. It wasn't obvious in any of the models I've seen, and a portion of that will be people that are used to very cold whites compared to the much closer to D65 convergence exhibited by the rmbp.
Overall I don't see it ever coming back. If they intended to bring out a 17" rmbp, they would have kept the old one around on life support as an interim model. I can't find a single case where they truly resurrected a subset of a product line that was previously killed, although I'm open to being corrected there.
I'll add that the old ones also have their design flaws. It's more likely that the iris pro model can hold a charge while maxed out, whereas that wasn't possible on 2011 models. They really ate through battery if cpu and gpu were simultaneously taxed, regardless of the presence of a charger. They also had annoying things such as vents toward the bottom of the screen. It compromised the display uniformity somewhat toward the bottom third if the thing was running really hot, and I've seen that across enough of them to know it wasn't just a fluke. I've been very notebook reliant lately due to not staying in one place and not doing so much in the way of graphically heavy computational tasks compared to a couple years ago. I'll probably use the one I have now until it actually fails, then switch to whatever is out at the time. I kind of hope it makes it to broadwell.
But the color reproduction isn't better, nor black levels, nor are the viewing angles
I agree that the viewing angle is better with the new screen (it's plain and obvious), but I don't know if I agree about colour reproduction or black level. Blacks may actually be darker on the new screen, but there appeared to me to be less detail in shadows than with my 17". I also thought the Retina screen exaggerated areas of heavily saturated, bright colour. Of course, both of those issues could be due to relative calibration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
This sort of thing happens with everything that changes, people who preferred the predecessor scrutinize and criticize the changes more heavily than they normally would in order to arrive at the conclusion they've already decided on, which is that they prefer the old one.
Yup, good ol' "Confirmation bias." I can't claim to be immune, but having so carefully compared prior to what I *thought* was going to be a purchase of a new 15" Retina machine, I like to think that my decision was based on something more substantial. This time. Maybe.
For now I don't have to worry about it too much because my existing machine is working fine. When it no longer does, it still won't matter whether I prefer the larger screen because I can't get one anyway! " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I agree that the viewing angle is better with the new screen (it's plain and obvious), but I don't know if I agree about colour reproduction or black level. Blacks may actually be darker on the new screen, but there appeared to me to be less detail in shadows than with my 17". I also thought the Retina screen exaggerated areas of heavily saturated, bright colour. Of course, both of those issues could be due to relative calibration.
If there was a new Retina 17", you'd have to find the same issues though in which case you'd stick with the old one for those reasons? If you would get a Retina 17" then the sole thing holding you back from the Retina 15" is the small scale difference and maybe the speaker quality.
If there was a new Retina 17", you'd have to find the same issues though in which case you'd stick with the old one for those reasons? If you would get a Retina 17" then the sole thing holding you back from the Retina 15" is the small scale difference and maybe the speaker quality.
Oh, I see what you mean. Good point.
I'm pretty sure I could deliver a convincing argument that even though I like the increased speed and faster peripheral connections and better resolution of the new 17" Retina, I still found the colour reproduction more accurate on the old one... Unfortunately it doesn't seem likely that I will find myself in a position of having to defend such a choice.
On another point, what you call a "small scale difference" I consider rather significant. It seems like you're trying to subtly suggest that my preference is somehow invalid. I don't understand why.
On another point, what you call a "small scale difference" I consider rather significant. It seems like you're trying to subtly suggest that my preference is somehow invalid. I don't understand why.
There are areas where an extra 1.6" can make a huge difference but I use the 'scale difference' part of the phrase to reiterate that the difference is solely in scale and not workspace. It was common for people to suggest that you could fit more on a 17" display. That's distinct from the 13" model for example that has a smaller workspace. I call it small because I think that difference in scale is small. You only have to sit closer by about 1.5" to get the exact same experience of the 17" display.
I realise it may be more significant to others but that could be the case if someone said they preferred a 16" display vs 15". I'd similarly call it a small difference no matter how much that difference meant to them. That description doesn't invalidate the significance to them but it can help explain why the sales of that model were so low and why it was discontinued. It wasn't significant enough to enough people.
You only have to sit closer by about 1.5" to get the exact same experience of the 17" display.\
??? I think you've miscalculated or mistyped. Sitting 1.5" closer to my wife's 15" set to 1920x1200 does not make text and UI elements as big as on my 17".
You only have to sit closer by about 1.5" to get the exact same experience of the 17" display.\
??? I think you've miscalculated or mistyped. Sitting 1.5" closer to my wife's 15" set to 1920x1200 does not make text and UI elements as big as on my 17".
but the difference in closeness depends on how far you normally are from the screen. If your head is normally 18" away from the 17.0" screen then for a 15.4" display to match it, the ratio of the distance to the diagonal would be the same at a distance of 15.4*18/17 = 16.3" or 1.7" closer.
You can try it yourself, if you put yours and your wife's (I assume Retina 15") laptops side by side at the same resolution and same display angle, setup an image with a shape like a square/rectangle on each open at the same resolution but the image is moved off the right side of the display on one and off the left on the other and slide the 17" back until the edges of both shapes line up, that will show the scale difference. Feel free to take a photo of the difference if it's more significant than I'm suggesting.
Comments
I recently (Finally!) purchased a new MacBook Pro but I still have & adore the 17-inch MacBook Pro that was my workhorse the past 5+ years. I really like the new one but would have preferred buying another 17-inch model except they don't make it any more so I got the 15.
The statement that the 17" display looks better than the 15" is too generic to say in an absolute way - they guy above has both so maybe he could take photos of the two side by side at 1920. The text can't look better, nor can imagery that is higher resolution than the display. Possibly lower resolution image content. But the color reproduction isn't better, nor black levels, nor are the viewing angles. The 15" display is better in more areas than the old 17". The same issues with the 15" would be true if they made a Retina 17" anyway, though I suspect they'd be conveniently overlooked if a 17" option was available. This sort of thing happens with everything that changes, people who preferred the predecessor scrutinize and criticize the changes more heavily than they normally would in order to arrive at the conclusion they've already decided on, which is that they prefer the old one. Remember the motion sickness people with iOS 7 demanding that an iOS 6 UI option be made available.
The statement that the 17" display looks better than the 15" is too generic to say in an absolute way - they guy above has both so maybe he could take photos of the two side by side at 1920. The text can't look better, nor can imagery that is higher resolution than the display. Possibly lower resolution image content. But the color reproduction isn't better, nor black levels, nor are the viewing angles. The 15" display is better in more areas than the old 17". The same issues with the 15" would be true if they made a Retina 17" anyway, though I suspect they'd be conveniently overlooked if a 17" option was available. This sort of thing happens with everything that changes, people who preferred the predecessor scrutinize and criticize the changes more heavily than they normally would in order to arrive at the conclusion they've already decided on, which is that they prefer the old one. Remember the motion sickness people with iOS 7 demanding that an iOS 6 UI option be made available.
I think the rmbp looks better in most ways, at least judging from the ones I have seen. I don't like the higher reflectivity so much, but overall it's a bit smoother in gradation, which is to be expected with an IPS display over the older TN. Resolution is a bit higher, although the 17" is still quite good in that regard. Prior to recent 4k options, 1920x1200 was the standard resolution for 24" displays. Having that at 17" makes for some very crisp text, albeit not with quite the same feeling of sharpness achieved in the rmbp models. The biggest complaint I've noticed is one of yellowish screens, which could be poor greyscale tracking or a shift in convergent color temperature throughout its range, but I haven't had the chance to personally verify it. It wasn't obvious in any of the models I've seen, and a portion of that will be people that are used to very cold whites compared to the much closer to D65 convergence exhibited by the rmbp.
Overall I don't see it ever coming back. If they intended to bring out a 17" rmbp, they would have kept the old one around on life support as an interim model. I can't find a single case where they truly resurrected a subset of a product line that was previously killed, although I'm open to being corrected there.
I'll add that the old ones also have their design flaws. It's more likely that the iris pro model can hold a charge while maxed out, whereas that wasn't possible on 2011 models. They really ate through battery if cpu and gpu were simultaneously taxed, regardless of the presence of a charger. They also had annoying things such as vents toward the bottom of the screen. It compromised the display uniformity somewhat toward the bottom third if the thing was running really hot, and I've seen that across enough of them to know it wasn't just a fluke. I've been very notebook reliant lately due to not staying in one place and not doing so much in the way of graphically heavy computational tasks compared to a couple years ago. I'll probably use the one I have now until it actually fails, then switch to whatever is out at the time. I kind of hope it makes it to broadwell.
But the color reproduction isn't better, nor black levels, nor are the viewing angles
I agree that the viewing angle is better with the new screen (it's plain and obvious), but I don't know if I agree about colour reproduction or black level. Blacks may actually be darker on the new screen, but there appeared to me to be less detail in shadows than with my 17". I also thought the Retina screen exaggerated areas of heavily saturated, bright colour. Of course, both of those issues could be due to relative calibration.
This sort of thing happens with everything that changes, people who preferred the predecessor scrutinize and criticize the changes more heavily than they normally would in order to arrive at the conclusion they've already decided on, which is that they prefer the old one.
Yup, good ol' "Confirmation bias." I can't claim to be immune, but having so carefully compared prior to what I *thought* was going to be a purchase of a new 15" Retina machine, I like to think that my decision was based on something more substantial. This time. Maybe.
For now I don't have to worry about it too much because my existing machine is working fine. When it no longer does, it still won't matter whether I prefer the larger screen because I can't get one anyway!
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
If there was a new Retina 17", you'd have to find the same issues though in which case you'd stick with the old one for those reasons? If you would get a Retina 17" then the sole thing holding you back from the Retina 15" is the small scale difference and maybe the speaker quality.
If there was a new Retina 17", you'd have to find the same issues though in which case you'd stick with the old one for those reasons? If you would get a Retina 17" then the sole thing holding you back from the Retina 15" is the small scale difference and maybe the speaker quality.
Oh, I see what you mean. Good point.
I'm pretty sure I could deliver a convincing argument that even though I like the increased speed and faster peripheral connections and better resolution of the new 17" Retina, I still found the colour reproduction more accurate on the old one...
Unfortunately it doesn't seem likely that I will find myself in a position of having to defend such a choice.
On another point, what you call a "small scale difference" I consider rather significant. It seems like you're trying to subtly suggest that my preference is somehow invalid. I don't understand why.
There are areas where an extra 1.6" can make a huge difference but I use the 'scale difference' part of the phrase to reiterate that the difference is solely in scale and not workspace. It was common for people to suggest that you could fit more on a 17" display. That's distinct from the 13" model for example that has a smaller workspace. I call it small because I think that difference in scale is small. You only have to sit closer by about 1.5" to get the exact same experience of the 17" display.
I realise it may be more significant to others but that could be the case if someone said they preferred a 16" display vs 15". I'd similarly call it a small difference no matter how much that difference meant to them. That description doesn't invalidate the significance to them but it can help explain why the sales of that model were so low and why it was discontinued. It wasn't significant enough to enough people.
I get emails about that nearly every day.
Sometimes even from Apple (note the address).
You only have to sit closer by about 1.5" to get the exact same experience of the 17" display.\
??? I think you've miscalculated or mistyped. Sitting 1.5" closer to my wife's 15" set to 1920x1200 does not make text and UI elements as big as on my 17".
It's based in mathematics:
http://www.mathopenref.com/similartrianglesparts.html
but the difference in closeness depends on how far you normally are from the screen. If your head is normally 18" away from the 17.0" screen then for a 15.4" display to match it, the ratio of the distance to the diagonal would be the same at a distance of 15.4*18/17 = 16.3" or 1.7" closer.
You can try it yourself, if you put yours and your wife's (I assume Retina 15") laptops side by side at the same resolution and same display angle, setup an image with a shape like a square/rectangle on each open at the same resolution but the image is moved off the right side of the display on one and off the left on the other and slide the 17" back until the edges of both shapes line up, that will show the scale difference. Feel free to take a photo of the difference if it's more significant than I'm suggesting.