1) You made a false and seemingly pejorative comment that made the PPI look worse than it was hence my query.
Sorry, you've lost me. What was "false"?
If you mean the distance, I used a chart using a formula derived from eye research that a lot of us used long before Apple later posted a formula. Is that what you're freaking out over?
Fine. What distance do you come up with for 324 PPI to make it "retina"? Is it so different from my rounded off 11" ?
Perfect. Of course, production capacity for such displays will be 1/2 of the capacity for the older panel so production will suffer, delays will occur and fanboys will claim that demand must just be super duper
Oh great. Having said that - the iPad sans retina is totally usable. Retina is nice and I like nice, but I never catch myself thinking "damn, I wish this was just 'that' much sharper".
I totally agree. People also forget the downsides to Retina:
1) Weight
2) Size
3) Battery life
4) Potentially slower (unless better graphics are used, which results in problem #3)
5) Consumption of storage capacity
6) Heat
It's #5 that gets me the most. The extra resolution means much larger file sizes for images and other content. If you're fine with a lower capacity iPad, that's cool, but for me 64GB isn't enough even without the Retina.
I don't envision this as replacement for iPad Mini but a Retina Mini model that sells for a $50-$75 price premium to $329 entry level. Apple may even forgo a 16 GB Retina entry model.
I totally agree. People also forget the downsides to Retina:
1) Weight
2) Size
3) Battery life
4) Potentially slower (unless better graphics are used, which results in problem #3)
5) Consumption of storage capacity
6) Heat
It's #5 that gets me the most. The extra resolution means much larger file sizes for images and other content. If you're fine with a lower capacity iPad, that's cool, but for me 64GB isn't enough even without the Retina.
As someone who uses the mini a lot, day in and day out, I think 4 is far more worrying to me.
I never even notice that it's not retina and haven't lost a seconds thought about it since I first picked it up, but what I do notice is the underpowered nature of the device itself. It's slow. Quite noticeably in some situations. It really needs a more powerful processor and more RAM.
My main worry is that in making it "Retina" (apparently only to please John Gruber and a few other weenies that care about such things), they are upping the power and processing requirements significantly.
I'd hate to see a Retina iPad mini with a bigger processor and more RAM that effectively is still "slow" simply because of Retina.
Perfect. Of course, production capacity for such displays will be 1/2 of the capacity for the older panel so production will suffer, delays will occur and fanboys will claim that demand must just be super duper
Can you explain why production capacity for 326 ppi panels will be 1/2 the capacity of 163 ppi panels?
In other words, you don't know what you are talking about ... again.
Yeah I get it - anyone who questions Apple's decisions, even RUMORED ones, gets shouted down or proof is demanded. Those on the other side... well of course, you can assume that Apple will have no trouble producing these panels, despite recent evidence of production problems with high PPI panels. Why would any member of the public KNOW about their production capabilities? Why would you? Why would I? But I sure know that they have had a LOT of trouble with these displays in the past year on various products.
Real solid strategy you fanboys have there. That way, you'll never know what hit you (er, Apple) until it's too late. Great strategy! Duhhhh
I'm really surprised all the focus is still on producing higher res screens and so little is being focused on reducing screen glare. Apple did a pretty good job with the iMac, but the iPad (4 for me) is just too reflective under too many situations. They've (Corning) figured out how to make the glass thin, strong, scratch resistant and (relatively speaking) light - why no focus on glare resistance or reduction?
Yeah I get it - anyone who questions Apple's decisions, even RUMORED ones, gets shouted down or proof is demanded. Those on the other side... well of course, you can assume that Apple will have no trouble producing these panels, despite recent evidence of production problems with high PPI panels. Why would any member of the public KNOW about their production capabilities? Why would you? Why would I? But I sure know that they have had a LOT of trouble with these displays in the past year on various products.
Real solid strategy you fanboys have there. That way, you'll never know what hit you (er, Apple) until it's too late. Great strategy! Duhhhh
Simple question, and I will ask nicely: Why would capacity for producing 326 ppi panels be half that of 163 ppi panels?
This is not about Apple, being a fanboy or strategy. It's a simple question based on something you wrote. Perhaps you can teach me something?
I would probably follow suit only if they finally release iBooks for OS X (or there is some other way to view, navigate and save EPUBs nicely) on a Mac otherwise my tech books will likely keep pushing me toward the 10" variety.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) You made a false and seemingly pejorative comment that made the PPI look worse than it was hence my query.
Sorry, you've lost me. What was "false"?
If you mean the distance, I used a chart using a formula derived from eye research that a lot of us used long before Apple later posted a formula. Is that what you're freaking out over?
Fine. What distance do you come up with for 324 PPI to make it "retina"? Is it so different from my rounded off 11" ?
Good grief.
Perfect. Of course, production capacity for such displays will be 1/2 of the capacity for the older panel so production will suffer, delays will occur and fanboys will claim that demand must just be super duper
Originally Posted by Captain J
Larger form size
Gonna be exactly the same size…
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
Oh great. Having said that - the iPad sans retina is totally usable. Retina is nice and I like nice, but I never catch myself thinking "damn, I wish this was just 'that' much sharper".
I totally agree. People also forget the downsides to Retina:
1) Weight
2) Size
3) Battery life
4) Potentially slower (unless better graphics are used, which results in problem #3)
5) Consumption of storage capacity
6) Heat
It's #5 that gets me the most. The extra resolution means much larger file sizes for images and other content. If you're fine with a lower capacity iPad, that's cool, but for me 64GB isn't enough even without the Retina.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut
I totally agree. People also forget the downsides to Retina:
1) Weight
2) Size
3) Battery life
4) Potentially slower (unless better graphics are used, which results in problem #3)
5) Consumption of storage capacity
6) Heat
It's #5 that gets me the most. The extra resolution means much larger file sizes for images and other content. If you're fine with a lower capacity iPad, that's cool, but for me 64GB isn't enough even without the Retina.
As someone who uses the mini a lot, day in and day out, I think 4 is far more worrying to me.
I never even notice that it's not retina and haven't lost a seconds thought about it since I first picked it up, but what I do notice is the underpowered nature of the device itself. It's slow. Quite noticeably in some situations. It really needs a more powerful processor and more RAM.
My main worry is that in making it "Retina" (apparently only to please John Gruber and a few other weenies that care about such things), they are upping the power and processing requirements significantly.
I'd hate to see a Retina iPad mini with a bigger processor and more RAM that effectively is still "slow" simply because of Retina.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
Perfect. Of course, production capacity for such displays will be 1/2 of the capacity for the older panel so production will suffer, delays will occur and fanboys will claim that demand must just be super duper
Can you explain why production capacity for 326 ppi panels will be 1/2 the capacity of 163 ppi panels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Gonna be exactly the same size…
Can we be sure? IPad 3 was thicker and heavier than iPad 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
Can you explain why production capacity for 326 ppi panels will be 1/2 the capacity of 163 ppi panels?
Can you explain why it wouldn't?
Originally Posted by stelligent
Can we be sure? IPad 3 was thicker…
.34" vs. .37".
Ooo~ so thick. And that was before the laminated screen whoozits, so I don't imagine it being a problem anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
Can you explain why it wouldn't?
In other words, you don't know what you are talking about ... again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
.34" vs. .37".
Ooo~ so thick. And that was before the laminated screen whoozits, so I don't imagine it being a problem anymore.
"Gonna be exactly the same size…"
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
In other words, you don't know what you are talking about ... again.
Yeah I get it - anyone who questions Apple's decisions, even RUMORED ones, gets shouted down or proof is demanded. Those on the other side... well of course, you can assume that Apple will have no trouble producing these panels, despite recent evidence of production problems with high PPI panels. Why would any member of the public KNOW about their production capabilities? Why would you? Why would I? But I sure know that they have had a LOT of trouble with these displays in the past year on various products.
Real solid strategy you fanboys have there. That way, you'll never know what hit you (er, Apple) until it's too late. Great strategy! Duhhhh
I'm really surprised all the focus is still on producing higher res screens and so little is being focused on reducing screen glare. Apple did a pretty good job with the iMac, but the iPad (4 for me) is just too reflective under too many situations. They've (Corning) figured out how to make the glass thin, strong, scratch resistant and (relatively speaking) light - why no focus on glare resistance or reduction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain J
Larger form size, more weight, more heat and less battery life (obviously battery life and weight/size are gonna be related). No thanks.
Yeah because Apple would actually release something like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
Yeah I get it - anyone who questions Apple's decisions, even RUMORED ones, gets shouted down or proof is demanded. Those on the other side... well of course, you can assume that Apple will have no trouble producing these panels, despite recent evidence of production problems with high PPI panels. Why would any member of the public KNOW about their production capabilities? Why would you? Why would I? But I sure know that they have had a LOT of trouble with these displays in the past year on various products.
Real solid strategy you fanboys have there. That way, you'll never know what hit you (er, Apple) until it's too late. Great strategy! Duhhhh
Simple question, and I will ask nicely: Why would capacity for producing 326 ppi panels be half that of 163 ppi panels?
This is not about Apple, being a fanboy or strategy. It's a simple question based on something you wrote. Perhaps you can teach me something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Yeah because Apple would actually release something like that.
Well, they have before. It was called iPad 3.
I would probably follow suit only if they finally release iBooks for OS X (or there is some other way to view, navigate and save EPUBs nicely) on a Mac otherwise my tech books will likely keep pushing me toward the 10" variety.