You know, I don't know how you can say that you have done what I do! You know nothing about what I do. I only said what I said to see what detail I needed to provide.
When you DID this was it real time, and did you have to react in near realtime, or not realtime at all? What sort of "dashboard" did you use to display the information. Did your software have the ability to rescale to the dimensions you want without pixelation (except in extreme cases). Could you change the types of graphs and graphics (with text or not) you wanted to use.
I'm curious how you interacted with your computer in real time when you are 3 feet away...but yes, real time monitoring. Rescaling plots are pretty straightforward. Histograms and waterfalls. As far as "react in realtime" in terms of human speeds yes, in as much as out of limit values indicated something that needed to be rapidly addressed.
In terms of hard real time control loops not in this case.
As far as to have done what you have done yes, in the general case just as a video pro can say they've largely done what other video pros have done in the context of this discussion. A video pro stating something like "you can't do X without Y" can be countered by another video pro stating "I have done X without Y".
Quote:
It is a matter of screen real estate. What I can tell you is that on a 1600X1200 15" screen was too small for my liking -- I much prefer the 17" display be it a MacBook Pro, Dell, or whatever. If it is not a problem for you, fine -- use a 15" display, but don't make assumptions about what you know nothing about -- which is the details about the work I do. So here are at least some of the details I would have provided:
It is not a matter of resolution -- 17" 1920x1200 works great for me regardless of how the pixels per inch figure out. The resolution of the display is not that important and has never been a problem. I prefer to not have overlapping windows so I don't have to keep moving things to be able to see what I want to see at any given time. The more I can see -- even if it only on more line, the easier my job becomes Screen layout is paramount for my workflow. Looking for anomalies and "red" flags is what is important and being able to react quickly. If I need to see greater detail I can zoom in on what I want to see at that time or later. Others I know-- that do what I do -- agree with this.
It is a matter of resolution (in terms of PPI) given that most systems will rescale plots, histograms, waterfalls, stripcharts, gauges to the size you want. A retina MBP has more screen real estate at 2880 x 1800 than a 17" MBP...it'll just be smaller in retina mode. And again you stated you needed to be able to see them from some distance away so size (which is a function of PPI given the same screen reolution) matters. In fact the 15" retina can do 1920x1200 in a scaled mode. Also a fact is that 17" at 1920x1200 defines what the PPI number will be.
Just as much or more screen real estate than a 17" MBP it just has to be a little closer to you. So really, this is about needing to be able to see your laptop screen from a distance greater than normal.
Quote:
You are welcome to your opinion, but don't judge what you don't understand. Having a portable computer is important, but the MacBook Pro 17" I have is not a problem to "lug" IMHO. The number of devices I have to interface with would totally overwhelm an iPad -- even if the caliber of interface I need is available for USB -- the data loss would make my efforts worthless. Having a portable computer is important. I've never had a problem being blocked by gear, but I do have to keep and eye on other things. Sunlight is definitely not a problem. And there is never 2 people involved in the monitoring -- but there might be in the analysis.
The point of the iPad is that you can use it as a secondary display for your MBP and therefore can have a screen not 3 feet away but right next to you. All the data still routes into your MBP for aquisition and processing.
Why do you believe I don't understand? I understand your point, I just think it's bullshit and your holier (more pro) than thou attitude annoying. It may be somewhat more annoying to do what you want to do with a 15" MBP but there's nothing "non-Pro" about the new MBPR.
Quote:
Moreover, that is a minor complaint compared to the other problems I have with the new Retina Display MacBook Pro and the direction Apple seems to be moving in. Please see: post #117
If you want to focus on one of my comments -- out of context, then flame away, flame away.
The ability for the user to service/upgrade the MBPR does not make any more or less of a "workstation quality" device and your context is highly specific not just to the small world of analog data aquisition but your specific workflow and personal preferences. And Apple has added a huge amount of expansion capability in the form of a second TB port. I can add two expansion chassis and handle far higher bandwidth needs than the old 17" MBP limited to one TB and the expresscard slot.
It's just a sustainment cost to consider. If you bump the RAM to max you are likely to be able to upgrade the SSD at a later date given this was possible with the MBA. And the MBPR is just as "repairable" as all other MBPs on Applecare. As in you send to the service shop your device and use your backup until you get it back. Voiding your warranty in an ill advised end user repair attempt isn't "pro" but "shoestring". Pros have backup of critical gear.
GIVE US WHO NEED IT a workstation quality portable device that is repairable and expandable....
I thought it might eventually boil down to that.
See, the point isn't whether or not you are the only professional in the world, to your own eyes, but whether or not the features you so passionately desire, are relevant to Apple in terms of helping them sell laptops. If they can take all those features away and stay profitable, or rather, become more profitable, they'll do it. Apple aren't in the business of satisfying your every wish, they're in the business of making tons of cash.
The decision has been made to trade off upgradability for thinness, coolness, lightness. Time will tell whether or not it was the right decision. You seem to think it was the wrong decision, and you are welcome to that opinion, but don't resort to fallacies to bolster that opinion.
I think the complaint is more about product name. It's called Pro, but it's not upgradable, therefore Apple should not have called it Pro, is how it goes. That pro feels cheated or betrayed somehow.
To which I reply, relax. If it makes you feel better call it "the new definition of Pro" or something. Because that's clearly where Apple is going with this.
If it doesn't get traction, and if lots of pros don't buy it, I suppose Apple will react, maybe.
For me, a software pro, who's been all Windows and Linux to date, it's ideal. It's portable, I'm not stuck at my desk. More pixels = good. Runs Win7 great which I need for windows based dev tools. OSX better than Windows for everything else. Thunderbolt = extended internal bus at full speed to the outside world, that's my expandability portal. USB 3.0, excellent, attach drives etc. that I already have, don't have to pay the Thunderbolt premium until I'm ready and/or prices come down. Just the right size/weight tradeoff. Can't upgrade the RAM and SSD? Meh. Next summer or sooner when we get the 32GB/1TB model, I can sell this one and buy the new one. These puppies will hold a good resale value, if I feel the need. Everything else on the box? Perfect as anything has been to date. Cachet? Check. Ecosystem? Best out there.
I think the complaint is more about product name. It's called Pro, but it's not upgradable, therefore Apple should not have called it Pro, is how it goes. That pro feels cheated or betrayed somehow.
To which I reply, relax. If it makes you feel better call it "the new definition of Pro" or something. Because that's clearly where Apple is going with this.
If it doesn't get traction, and if lots of pros don't buy it, I suppose Apple will react, maybe.
For me, a software pro, who's been all Windows and Linux to date, it's ideal. It's portable, I'm not stuck at my desk. More pixels = good. Runs Win7 great which I need for windows based dev tools. OSX better than Windows for everything else. Thunderbolt = extended internal bus at full speed to the outside world, that's my expandability portal. USB 3.0, excellent, attach drives etc. that I already have, don't have to pay the Thunderbolt premium until I'm ready and/or prices come down. Just the right size/weight tradeoff. Can't upgrade the RAM and SSD? Meh. Next summer or sooner when we get the 32GB/1TB model, I can sell this one and buy the new one. These puppies will hold a good resale value, if I feel the need. Everything else on the box? Perfect as anything has been to date. Cachet? Check. Ecosystem? Best out there.
"A retina MBP has more screen real estate at 2880 x 1800 than a 17" MBP...it'll just be smaller in retina mode.
"
No, it won't.
You are confusing resolution with screen real estate.
The new line of mac book pro's is a DOWNGRADE in terms of screen real estate. I created this account just to post on how aggravated I am with the decision to kill the 17" macbook pro.
The difference between 17" at 1920x1200 on a matte screen is considerable for a mobile designer/journalist. Pretty much everybody I work with has the MBP 17", esp the video/audio guys. I have already tested the new macbook pro 15" in scaled mode and the screen space is a good bit of loss to seeing more tools, more lines of codes, and not having over lapping windows. I am more upset as the Macbook Pro line is the ONLY reason that I switched to Apple. It was quality hardware at a big size a portable 18" or 19" actually wouldn't be that bad, they aren't heavy.
Fortunately the 2011 is a good product, but the screen size is a big deal breaker. I'll try to keep it running as long as possible, but then might consider going Windows. Either that or be forced to buy an Ipad and possibly use the air display, kind of annoying though.
Also a "pro" model should be easily swappable for HDD and Ram, many other laptop makers make this entirely easy. Ram can go bad, HDD's can go bad.
Probably right... but, my points remain. It is a loss to the lineup. 17" is a pretty standard power user/pro user form factor, has been since the powerbook g4 as far as apple goes. It carved the way for a true "desktop" replacement that could make do, about that time for many is when they started to switch from desktops to laptops for their needs. Personally it took me to about 2006 before I ditched the desktop model altogether, but the 17" screen was a KEY factor, not only the screen size, but the bigger form factor to put higher GPU's, larger expansion and faster/hotter spinning drives in the bigger laptop. Weight was NEVER an issue, never has been. I have extra batteries, laptop, heavy SLR, etc that I easily carry around in my lowepro backpack. Honestly they could have standed to push it to 18-19" inches like several other manufacturers did and still do. Lenovo has pro laptops with multi swinging screens in the w700 which were brought out 4 years ago for instance. Plenty of gaming laptops go in the 18-20" range. That is why it is crazy for myself and it seems like many others for them to eliminate the 17" form factor altogether. The nice 17" matte high resolution 1920x1200 display was a key selling point. The software advancements are kind of trivial for people that need more screen space and mobility, which is a lot of professionals, those of us routinely spending the most money and who have been telling other people to join the apple bandwagon for a longgg time.
Heres the problem i have, ive had a shop put aside a new retina macbook pro (when it arrives this friday) the 2.6ghz with 512 SSD, only 8GB of ram.
my probelm is, should i cancel that & get it upgraded to 16gb of ram, for day to day multimedia stuff & some 3d animation, do i really need the 16gb of ram, its bugging me thinking about it tho.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by mess
You know, I don't know how you can say that you have done what I do! You know nothing about what I do. I only said what I said to see what detail I needed to provide.
When you DID this was it real time, and did you have to react in near realtime, or not realtime at all? What sort of "dashboard" did you use to display the information. Did your software have the ability to rescale to the dimensions you want without pixelation (except in extreme cases). Could you change the types of graphs and graphics (with text or not) you wanted to use.
I'm curious how you interacted with your computer in real time when you are 3 feet away...but yes, real time monitoring. Rescaling plots are pretty straightforward. Histograms and waterfalls. As far as "react in realtime" in terms of human speeds yes, in as much as out of limit values indicated something that needed to be rapidly addressed.
In terms of hard real time control loops not in this case.
As far as to have done what you have done yes, in the general case just as a video pro can say they've largely done what other video pros have done in the context of this discussion. A video pro stating something like "you can't do X without Y" can be countered by another video pro stating "I have done X without Y".
Quote:
It is a matter of screen real estate. What I can tell you is that on a 1600X1200 15" screen was too small for my liking -- I much prefer the 17" display be it a MacBook Pro, Dell, or whatever. If it is not a problem for you, fine -- use a 15" display, but don't make assumptions about what you know nothing about -- which is the details about the work I do. So here are at least some of the details I would have provided:
It is not a matter of resolution -- 17" 1920x1200 works great for me regardless of how the pixels per inch figure out. The resolution of the display is not that important and has never been a problem. I prefer to not have overlapping windows so I don't have to keep moving things to be able to see what I want to see at any given time. The more I can see -- even if it only on more line, the easier my job becomes Screen layout is paramount for my workflow. Looking for anomalies and "red" flags is what is important and being able to react quickly. If I need to see greater detail I can zoom in on what I want to see at that time or later. Others I know-- that do what I do -- agree with this.
It is a matter of resolution (in terms of PPI) given that most systems will rescale plots, histograms, waterfalls, stripcharts, gauges to the size you want. A retina MBP has more screen real estate at 2880 x 1800 than a 17" MBP...it'll just be smaller in retina mode. And again you stated you needed to be able to see them from some distance away so size (which is a function of PPI given the same screen reolution) matters. In fact the 15" retina can do 1920x1200 in a scaled mode. Also a fact is that 17" at 1920x1200 defines what the PPI number will be.
Just as much or more screen real estate than a 17" MBP it just has to be a little closer to you. So really, this is about needing to be able to see your laptop screen from a distance greater than normal.
Quote:
You are welcome to your opinion, but don't judge what you don't understand. Having a portable computer is important, but the MacBook Pro 17" I have is not a problem to "lug" IMHO. The number of devices I have to interface with would totally overwhelm an iPad -- even if the caliber of interface I need is available for USB -- the data loss would make my efforts worthless. Having a portable computer is important. I've never had a problem being blocked by gear, but I do have to keep and eye on other things. Sunlight is definitely not a problem. And there is never 2 people involved in the monitoring -- but there might be in the analysis.
The point of the iPad is that you can use it as a secondary display for your MBP and therefore can have a screen not 3 feet away but right next to you. All the data still routes into your MBP for aquisition and processing.
Why do you believe I don't understand? I understand your point, I just think it's bullshit and your holier (more pro) than thou attitude annoying. It may be somewhat more annoying to do what you want to do with a 15" MBP but there's nothing "non-Pro" about the new MBPR.
Quote:
Moreover, that is a minor complaint compared to the other problems I have with the new Retina Display MacBook Pro and the direction Apple seems to be moving in. Please see: post #117
If you want to focus on one of my comments -- out of context, then flame away, flame away.
The ability for the user to service/upgrade the MBPR does not make any more or less of a "workstation quality" device and your context is highly specific not just to the small world of analog data aquisition but your specific workflow and personal preferences. And Apple has added a huge amount of expansion capability in the form of a second TB port. I can add two expansion chassis and handle far higher bandwidth needs than the old 17" MBP limited to one TB and the expresscard slot.
It's just a sustainment cost to consider. If you bump the RAM to max you are likely to be able to upgrade the SSD at a later date given this was possible with the MBA. And the MBPR is just as "repairable" as all other MBPs on Applecare. As in you send to the service shop your device and use your backup until you get it back. Voiding your warranty in an ill advised end user repair attempt isn't "pro" but "shoestring". Pros have backup of critical gear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mess
GIVE US WHO NEED IT a workstation quality portable device that is repairable and expandable....
I thought it might eventually boil down to that.
See, the point isn't whether or not you are the only professional in the world, to your own eyes, but whether or not the features you so passionately desire, are relevant to Apple in terms of helping them sell laptops. If they can take all those features away and stay profitable, or rather, become more profitable, they'll do it. Apple aren't in the business of satisfying your every wish, they're in the business of making tons of cash.
The decision has been made to trade off upgradability for thinness, coolness, lightness. Time will tell whether or not it was the right decision. You seem to think it was the wrong decision, and you are welcome to that opinion, but don't resort to fallacies to bolster that opinion.
.tsooJ
To which I reply, relax. If it makes you feel better call it "the new definition of Pro" or something. Because that's clearly where Apple is going with this.
If it doesn't get traction, and if lots of pros don't buy it, I suppose Apple will react, maybe.
For me, a software pro, who's been all Windows and Linux to date, it's ideal. It's portable, I'm not stuck at my desk. More pixels = good. Runs Win7 great which I need for windows based dev tools. OSX better than Windows for everything else. Thunderbolt = extended internal bus at full speed to the outside world, that's my expandability portal. USB 3.0, excellent, attach drives etc. that I already have, don't have to pay the Thunderbolt premium until I'm ready and/or prices come down. Just the right size/weight tradeoff. Can't upgrade the RAM and SSD? Meh. Next summer or sooner when we get the 32GB/1TB model, I can sell this one and buy the new one. These puppies will hold a good resale value, if I feel the need. Everything else on the box? Perfect as anything has been to date. Cachet? Check. Ecosystem? Best out there.
Exactly. Kudo's.
"A retina MBP has more screen real estate at 2880 x 1800 than a 17" MBP...it'll just be smaller in retina mode.
"
No, it won't.
You are confusing resolution with screen real estate.
The new line of mac book pro's is a DOWNGRADE in terms of screen real estate. I created this account just to post on how aggravated I am with the decision to kill the 17" macbook pro.
The difference between 17" at 1920x1200 on a matte screen is considerable for a mobile designer/journalist. Pretty much everybody I work with has the MBP 17", esp the video/audio guys. I have already tested the new macbook pro 15" in scaled mode and the screen space is a good bit of loss to seeing more tools, more lines of codes, and not having over lapping windows. I am more upset as the Macbook Pro line is the ONLY reason that I switched to Apple. It was quality hardware at a big size a portable 18" or 19" actually wouldn't be that bad, they aren't heavy.
Fortunately the 2011 is a good product, but the screen size is a big deal breaker. I'll try to keep it running as long as possible, but then might consider going Windows. Either that or be forced to buy an Ipad and possibly use the air display, kind of annoying though.
Also a "pro" model should be easily swappable for HDD and Ram, many other laptop makers make this entirely easy. Ram can go bad, HDD's can go bad.
No, you won't.
Probably right... but, my points remain. It is a loss to the lineup. 17" is a pretty standard power user/pro user form factor, has been since the powerbook g4 as far as apple goes. It carved the way for a true "desktop" replacement that could make do, about that time for many is when they started to switch from desktops to laptops for their needs. Personally it took me to about 2006 before I ditched the desktop model altogether, but the 17" screen was a KEY factor, not only the screen size, but the bigger form factor to put higher GPU's, larger expansion and faster/hotter spinning drives in the bigger laptop. Weight was NEVER an issue, never has been. I have extra batteries, laptop, heavy SLR, etc that I easily carry around in my lowepro backpack. Honestly they could have standed to push it to 18-19" inches like several other manufacturers did and still do. Lenovo has pro laptops with multi swinging screens in the w700 which were brought out 4 years ago for instance. Plenty of gaming laptops go in the 18-20" range. That is why it is crazy for myself and it seems like many others for them to eliminate the 17" form factor altogether. The nice 17" matte high resolution 1920x1200 display was a key selling point. The software advancements are kind of trivial for people that need more screen space and mobility, which is a lot of professionals, those of us routinely spending the most money and who have been telling other people to join the apple bandwagon for a longgg time.
Heres the problem i have, ive had a shop put aside a new retina macbook pro (when it arrives this friday) the 2.6ghz with 512 SSD, only 8GB of ram.
my probelm is, should i cancel that & get it upgraded to 16gb of ram, for day to day multimedia stuff & some 3d animation, do i really need the 16gb of ram, its bugging me thinking about it tho.