View Single Post
  #62 (permalink)  
Old June 13, 2012, 10:55 PM
ipaine's Avatar
ipaine ipaine is offline
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 2,035

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mars View Post
A blurb from the overall display analysis on Anandtech:

"Even at the non-integer scaled 1680 x 1050 setting, the Retina Display looks a lot better than last year's high-res panel. It looks like Apple actually renders the screen at twice the selected resolution before scaling it to fit the 2880 x 1800 panel (in other words, at 1920 x 1200 Apple is rendering everything at 3840 x 2400 (!) before scaling - this is likely where the perf impact is seen, but I'm trying to find a way to quantify that now). Everything just looks better. I also appreciate how quick it is to switch between resolutions on OS X. When I'm doing a lot of work I prefer the 1920 x 1200 setting, but if I'm in content consumption mode I find myself happier at 1440 x 900 or 1680 x 1050."
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoc View Post
How would it be useless? Those who edit large photos (12gb+ RAW) would definitely find it handy as it allows them to see more detail with less real estate. Architects can use it since it can handle more detail with it's much higher DPI. This is just 2 quick examples where screen real estate is important but doesn't need a rendering powerhouse to use. Regarding 'facebook'ers they are already over spec'd with any laptop right now, a laptop from 2001 can do the same of what they want. But if someone decides to buy a caterpillar to dig a small patch for a flowerbed in their front yard, it's their choice.

Ok, now here is how things are. If you look at both of those quotes and start really thinking about it you will the true irony about this screen. As stated in that Anandtech article, the maximum scale is 1920x1200. This means that the one thing that I could have seen as a benefit of this display which is mentioned in the second quote was working with photos. See I thought when I first heard about this was yes looking at nice high res photos would look great, but the kicker is that you do not get any more screen real estate as you do with a 1920x1200 display, none. So in the second quote you take that 12gb+ raw, and it will not look any better on this display than it would on a 1920x1200 one. You will still have to scroll all over the place to see the image. Hell those large images will look the same but I will see more of them on my 27" Dell. Oh and even the people defending the screen agree as seen in the following quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mars View Post
The original discussion was me pointing out that it won't make images look worse - I've been clear from the start that it's not going to make images look better either - images will all look the same.
Look I would love a 2880x1800 display, but I want it to be 27-30", at least then they would not have to resort to this scaling that is integrated into the OS. Oh and while I know some of the Mac people don't like using gaming as a possible benchmark of performance but while this does have a 650M in it, it will not perform as well as a 650M in any other notebook running at 1920x1200 or any other resolution. The reason is stated by Anandtech, the output is 2880x1800 all the time, it just scales everything all the time. They even say that there is a performance hit.

Oh and about everything looking so good on it, well of course. It is a very nice screen, plain and simple, but that does not mean it is any better than a top quality 1920x1200 screen. Yes if it did not have that built in scaling or at least let you run it at the actual native res then sure it would be extremely nice with the right images, but it does not.

All in all every bit of coverage I have seen about these new macbooks has been either full of drinking the apple koolaid rara that it hurts to read or it is done showing it for what it really is. And what is it, well it is a nice notebook that has some terrible designs, solder ram, impossible to upgrade anything, can't fix anything in the slightest, and questionable ssd. But it has good points as well, lets face it it is thin and light which is always nice on a notebook, it actually gives you a good chip and while not upgradeable in the future at least it has the option for 16GB ram.

Will it be a decent, nice looking notebook, yes of course, but is it worth the money? Not to anyone who is not drinking the koolaid.
__________________
"Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong."


Reply With Quote