Who says you have to push out the 1TB on LTE (or, for that matter on the ChromeBook)?
It does have USB ports.
I think people don't understand what WebKit as the UI means. I think they actually think it's just a browser, yet I don't recall people complaining about WebOS being just a browser. I think people think you have to be connected to the internet and Google's services to use it, and yet I don't recall anyone scratching their heads wondering how the Palm Pre with its browser-based UI was able connect to iTunes via USB.
Have you bothered to look at those Apps? Might as well say the iPad is better than Photoshop for photo editing or Vegas/Premiere/Avid for video editing. They are nothing more than Android equivalents of iOS Apps like Snapseed or iMovie. It might seem impressive to do photo editing in your smartphone, but when compared to desktop software you quickly realize how lacking they are.
Well since you want to change your claim to "there's better devices for photo-editing" I'll absolutely agree with you, but that's not what you originally said. You were quite emphatic that photo-editing and video creation couldn't be done on a Chromebook.
I think people don't understand what WebKit as the UI means. I think they actually think it's just a browser, yet I don't recall people complaining about WebOS being just a browser. I think people think you have to be connected to the internet and Google's services to use it, and yet I don't recall anyone scratching their heads wondering how the Palm Pre with its browser-based UI was able connect to iTunes via USB.
Here's the important takeaway: If at a given distance the pixel is equal to or smaller than the size resolvable by the human eye, no greater pixel density is necessary, as no greater quality can possibly be perceived.
Ah, so it's marketing bullshit. That's what I thought.
Well since you want to change your claim to "there's better devices for photo-editing" I'll absolutely agree with you, but that's not what you originally said. You were quite emphatic that photo-editing and video creation couldn't be done on a Chromebook. You were wrong.
Its still not pro level bud, like Eric said its equal to ios apps. Do you get to demo the product before you market it?
Ah, so it's marketing bullshit. That's what I thought.
Bullshit would imply that it's false. How is it false? Seems like Apple has been up front, even given a very technical equation on how they decide if something falls within the Retina category.
If it's all BS then why don't they call their iMacs Retina? Or their MBAs?
[...] I'm debating whether to step up to a 15" MacBook Pro Retina, or just get a 15" non-Retina MBP and save the cash.
I'd say it depends on how long you plan to keep it and how willing you are to tolerate growing pains.
Right now, apps that are optimized for the retina display look great. To my 50-year-old eyes the difference seems like no big deal, but it is clearly better.
However, apps that are NOT optimized for the retina display look significantly worse than they would on a standard display. At this point, that's most apps. Eventually the tide will shift and retina-optimized apps will become common, but until then you'll have paid extra for a user experience that's split between better and worse image quality.
This next bit is just opinion, and yours may differ so go check it out for yourself, but to MY eyes, retina-ready apps look "better than standard, but not what I'd call night-and-day" whereas non-retina apps on the retina display look MUCH worse -- night-and-day worse. That means for me the upside is outweighed by the downside. Because of that, and the fact that I think I will be ready to buy another machine by the time the software transition skews positive (I'm guessing two years best case, probably three), I am buying the old version THIS time, but probably retina next time.
Bullshit would imply that it's false. How is it false? Seems like Apple has been up front, even given a very technical equation on how they decide if something falls within the Retina category.
If it's all BS then why don't they call their iMacs Retina? Or their MBAs?
I wasn't implying that anything was false, just that this new spec war over resolution is meaningless after a point. But, as usual, some will buy into it even though it would be impossible for their eyes to see the difference.
GNU has nothing to do with any kernel as far as I know.
Sure it does. You can license the kernel differently than other parts of the OS. Android lists the kernel as being under the GNU GPL and the rest being Apache license.
I guess there is some confusion. Although something can be licensed under GPLv2 doesn't make it GNU in origin. GNU has it's own kernel named Hurd, which I was unaware of, but Hurd is not finished or in distribution and is entirely separate from the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux is apparently the proper way to refer to the popular OS known as Linux as most of the parts except the kernel are from GNU.
Well since you want to change your claim to "there's better devices for photo-editing" I'll absolutely agree with you, but that's not what you originally said. You were quite emphatic that photo-editing and video creation couldn't be done on a Chromebook. You were wrong.
Trying to be 100% literal with a few words someone said and then basing your argument around that. My original claim hasn't changed one bit - only your interpretation of it has (which is wrong, BTW).
Did you not read the last statement in my original post? "Bottom line: great for simple tasks, useless for real work."
That applies to simple photo/video tools vs professional tools. You listed a couple of basic photo/video Apps that would never be used by anyone for real work, which is what my final statement said. So all you did was prove my point even further.
While we're at it you also completely ignored my other comments. Like the fact it's useless for web developers. Imagine that - a computer based around the web that can't be used to develop for the web because it lacks the most rudimentary features a web developer needs. I find that quite ironic.
I wasn't implying that anything was false, just that this new spec war over resolution is meaningless after a point. But, as usual, some will buy into it even though it would be impossible for their eyes to see the difference.
Your comment clearly referenced the marketing as BS but the only marketing I see is the Retina claim which has already been detailed several times. Since pre-Retina displays on Apple's devices once could easily see the pixels without having 20/20(6/6) vision it's not BS. I don't know Apple or anyone else can be more clear about it.
Right now we've barely tipped into this Retina-quality space. Apple first mass marketed it years ago for the consumer space with the iPhone 4 but that is just the tip of the iceberg. We still don't have all the Macs with Retina displays and the Chromebook is a lone oddball to prove a point, I guess, because I can't see how the GPU could possibly handle that many pixels for a real workload or why anyone would want it for just a browser.
As previously stated there are several factors, like ones vision and how far one prefers to use the device from their eyes, that makes it impossible to define an exact number that will work for everyone. We're not even close to being so far into this Retina classification that it doesn't mean someone with the best visual acuity on Earth today or in the future won't be able to make out individual pixels from their normal viewing distance, but again that's not how the definition was made.
As for the spec wars, it's only ever been relevant within its own subsection. You can't say that 2.7GHz process has higher performance than a 2.1GHz processor, but you can say which one has the high clock speed, but we know clock speed doesn't equate to higher performance unless we're talking about the same class of processor.
Wrong. In particular, if you really want, you can install linux on your chromebook, which makes it a very nice development box (and yes, ChromeOS stays on it).
Why would you want to when you could buy a laptop and put Linux on it instead? If you have to look at a product from the point of view of a hacker or modder before it's really useful then your product is a failure.
While we're at it you also completely ignored my other comments. Like the fact it's useless for web developers. Imagine that - a computer based around the web that can't be used to develop for the web because it lacks the most rudimentary features a web developer needs. I find that quite ironic.
Just because I didn't comment on it doesn't mean it was ignored. i don't know anything about web development nor did I see anything that would dispute what you said, so I had nothing to add. You're probably right that it's not a good choice for a web developer. You just weren't right about some of your other Chromebook claims.
How close do people look at their screens? I'm about 40/45cm - 16/18 inches away so I wonder do I actually get close enough to benefit from these high resolution screens?
How close do people look at their screens? I'm about 40/45cm - 16/18 inches away so I wonder do I actually get close enough to benefit from these high resolution screens?
At that distance you absolutely would for any reasonable visual acuity. The equation 3438 * (1 ÷ n<sub>1</sub> inches ) = n<sub>2</sub> PPI or the reverse, 3438 * (1 ÷ n<sub>2</sub> PPI ) = n<sub>1</sub> inches.
So at 16" from your face 3438 * (1 ÷ 16) = 215 PPI is the minimum for not being able to discern individual pixels for someone with 6/6(20/20) vision. That really just puts you right inside that threshold.
Note, if you have bad vision high PPI displays can still be a benefit because you need to measure from the old PPI of about 120, and not consider anything that may be above and beyond for you particular eyesight. For those older displays you'd have to be about 29" away for it to have the same effect. That's a big window.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
So you get the ChromeBook with LTE. That 1TB will cost (over LTE) about $10/GB so read and write it 1 time (2TB of access) will be about $20,000.
If you are going to count the 1TB as a minus cost, I will count the cost of bandwidth toward the device.
Who says you have to push out the 1TB on LTE (or, for that matter on the ChromeBook)?
It does have USB ports.
I think people don't understand what WebKit as the UI means. I think they actually think it's just a browser, yet I don't recall people complaining about WebOS being just a browser. I think people think you have to be connected to the internet and Google's services to use it, and yet I don't recall anyone scratching their heads wondering how the Palm Pre with its browser-based UI was able connect to iTunes via USB.
Well since you want to change your claim to "there's better devices for photo-editing" I'll absolutely agree with you, but that's not what you originally said. You were quite emphatic that photo-editing and video creation couldn't be done on a Chromebook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It does have USB ports.
I think people don't understand what WebKit as the UI means. I think they actually think it's just a browser, yet I don't recall people complaining about WebOS being just a browser. I think people think you have to be connected to the internet and Google's services to use it, and yet I don't recall anyone scratching their heads wondering how the Palm Pre with its browser-based UI was able connect to iTunes via USB.
It also has WiFi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Here's the important takeaway: If at a given distance the pixel is equal to or smaller than the size resolvable by the human eye, no greater pixel density is necessary, as no greater quality can possibly be perceived.
Ah, so it's marketing bullshit. That's what I thought.
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Ah, so it's marketing bullshit. That's what I thought.
BS… after a point. Resolution increases are noticeable and can be important up to that.
I guess the simplest analogy is an asymptotic line, but the graph is a little more complex than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Well since you want to change your claim to "there's better devices for photo-editing" I'll absolutely agree with you, but that's not what you originally said. You were quite emphatic that photo-editing and video creation couldn't be done on a Chromebook. You were wrong.
Its still not pro level bud, like Eric said its equal to ios apps. Do you get to demo the product before you market it?
Bullshit would imply that it's false. How is it false? Seems like Apple has been up front, even given a very technical equation on how they decide if something falls within the Retina category.
If it's all BS then why don't they call their iMacs Retina? Or their MBAs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
[...] I'm debating whether to step up to a 15" MacBook Pro Retina, or just get a 15" non-Retina MBP and save the cash.
I'd say it depends on how long you plan to keep it and how willing you are to tolerate growing pains.
Right now, apps that are optimized for the retina display look great. To my 50-year-old eyes the difference seems like no big deal, but it is clearly better.
However, apps that are NOT optimized for the retina display look significantly worse than they would on a standard display. At this point, that's most apps. Eventually the tide will shift and retina-optimized apps will become common, but until then you'll have paid extra for a user experience that's split between better and worse image quality.
This next bit is just opinion, and yours may differ so go check it out for yourself, but to MY eyes, retina-ready apps look "better than standard, but not what I'd call night-and-day" whereas non-retina apps on the retina display look MUCH worse -- night-and-day worse. That means for me the upside is outweighed by the downside. Because of that, and the fact that I think I will be ready to buy another machine by the time the software transition skews positive (I'm guessing two years best case, probably three), I am buying the old version THIS time, but probably retina next time.
Your mileage may vary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Bullshit would imply that it's false. How is it false? Seems like Apple has been up front, even given a very technical equation on how they decide if something falls within the Retina category.
If it's all BS then why don't they call their iMacs Retina? Or their MBAs?
I wasn't implying that anything was false, just that this new spec war over resolution is meaningless after a point. But, as usual, some will buy into it even though it would be impossible for their eyes to see the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
BS… after a point. Resolution increases are noticeable and can be important up to that.
I guess the simplest analogy is an asymptotic line, but the graph is a little more complex than that.
Well ,at least I will be better able to SEE why Apple is Doomed™ ¡
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
GNU has nothing to do with any kernel as far as I know.
Sure it does. You can license the kernel differently than other parts of the OS. Android lists the kernel as being under the GNU GPL and the rest being Apache license.
I guess there is some confusion. Although something can be licensed under GPLv2 doesn't make it GNU in origin. GNU has it's own kernel named Hurd, which I was unaware of, but Hurd is not finished or in distribution and is entirely separate from the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux is apparently the proper way to refer to the popular OS known as Linux as most of the parts except the kernel are from GNU.
Here is an interesting read:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#why
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Well since you want to change your claim to "there's better devices for photo-editing" I'll absolutely agree with you, but that's not what you originally said. You were quite emphatic that photo-editing and video creation couldn't be done on a Chromebook. You were wrong.
Trying to be 100% literal with a few words someone said and then basing your argument around that. My original claim hasn't changed one bit - only your interpretation of it has (which is wrong, BTW).
Did you not read the last statement in my original post? "Bottom line: great for simple tasks, useless for real work."
That applies to simple photo/video tools vs professional tools. You listed a couple of basic photo/video Apps that would never be used by anyone for real work, which is what my final statement said. So all you did was prove my point even further.
While we're at it you also completely ignored my other comments. Like the fact it's useless for web developers. Imagine that - a computer based around the web that can't be used to develop for the web because it lacks the most rudimentary features a web developer needs. I find that quite ironic.
Your comment clearly referenced the marketing as BS but the only marketing I see is the Retina claim which has already been detailed several times. Since pre-Retina displays on Apple's devices once could easily see the pixels without having 20/20(6/6) vision it's not BS. I don't know Apple or anyone else can be more clear about it.
Right now we've barely tipped into this Retina-quality space. Apple first mass marketed it years ago for the consumer space with the iPhone 4 but that is just the tip of the iceberg. We still don't have all the Macs with Retina displays and the Chromebook is a lone oddball to prove a point, I guess, because I can't see how the GPU could possibly handle that many pixels for a real workload or why anyone would want it for just a browser.
As previously stated there are several factors, like ones vision and how far one prefers to use the device from their eyes, that makes it impossible to define an exact number that will work for everyone. We're not even close to being so far into this Retina classification that it doesn't mean someone with the best visual acuity on Earth today or in the future won't be able to make out individual pixels from their normal viewing distance, but again that's not how the definition was made.
As for the spec wars, it's only ever been relevant within its own subsection. You can't say that 2.7GHz process has higher performance than a 2.1GHz processor, but you can say which one has the high clock speed, but we know clock speed doesn't equate to higher performance unless we're talking about the same class of processor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Wrong. In particular, if you really want, you can install linux on your chromebook, which makes it a very nice development box (and yes, ChromeOS stays on it).
Why would you want to when you could buy a laptop and put Linux on it instead? If you have to look at a product from the point of view of a hacker or modder before it's really useful then your product is a failure.
Just because I didn't comment on it doesn't mean it was ignored. i don't know anything about web development nor did I see anything that would dispute what you said, so I had nothing to add. You're probably right that it's not a good choice for a web developer. You just weren't right about some of your other Chromebook claims.
How close do people look at their screens? I'm about 40/45cm - 16/18 inches away so I wonder do I actually get close enough to benefit from these high resolution screens?
At that distance you absolutely would for any reasonable visual acuity. The equation 3438 * (1 ÷ n<sub>1</sub> inches ) = n<sub>2</sub> PPI or the reverse, 3438 * (1 ÷ n<sub>2</sub> PPI ) = n<sub>1</sub> inches.
So at 16" from your face 3438 * (1 ÷ 16) = 215 PPI is the minimum for not being able to discern individual pixels for someone with 6/6(20/20) vision. That really just puts you right inside that threshold.
Note, if you have bad vision high PPI displays can still be a benefit because you need to measure from the old PPI of about 120, and not consider anything that may be above and beyond for you particular eyesight. For those older displays you'd have to be about 29" away for it to have the same effect. That's a big window.
OK thanks! And how far are you away from the screen?
About that for my 13" MBP and about 22 to 28 inches for my 27" iMac.