Go Back   Hardware Canucks > Mac, iPhone & iPod > Mac

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)  
Old June 13, 2012, 06:35 PM
Lpfan4ever's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,772

My System Specs

Default

Of course it's not easily serviceable. You're supposed to buy the new one when it dies.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by encorp
I don't know, maybe if you get a big enough compacticator you can put it in your butt and name yourself "sexbuttplug"...
Code:
<martin_metal_88> I think I am gonna sell my server
...
<firebane> i will offer pereniums mom
<firebane> slightly used
<Keltron> slightly is an understatement
<LPfan4ever> Who're you kidding...slightly?
<martin_metal_88> peri's mom, slightly used? lol...

Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old June 13, 2012, 10:55 PM
ipaine's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 2,076

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
  #63 (permalink)  
Old June 13, 2012, 11:14 PM
MVP
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ipaine View Post
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:
I was going to comment more on this, but there isn't enough information about how specifically images (other than UI elements) in programs scale. I suspect image editing programs will have some apis they can use in order to display images at their full resolution. This is mostly going to be a nice feature for looking at images though, unless you really enjoy using photoshop with your face 6 inches from the screen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ipaine View Post
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.
Well, the scaling situation isn't as bad as you make out here - in fact, it's a lot better. Text and UI elements in supported programs will all be rendered at the full unscaled 2880x1440 resolution, at an appropriate size for the scaling option chosen. Webpages are able to show full unscaled images - it works the same as the new ipad, where webpages can serve up high resolution images based on user agent.

The scaling is just there to deal with combinations of things which are at lower and higher resolutions. Essentially if you run at the 1440x900 scaling, you are running at the full 2880x1440 resolution, where stuff that doesn't have high-resolution versions available will be displayed pixel doubled, so they'll look the same as on a 1440x900 display.
Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old June 14, 2012, 07:16 AM
great_big_abyss's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,211

My System Specs

Default

Here is an interesting read.

It's a great example of the bloated prices that Apple applies to its products, and how they're able to sell their products using 'magical' and 'incredible' lingo which, ultimately, mean nothing at all (except to boost the egos of latte sipping hipsters).
__________________



HTPC: Z77A-G45; 3770K; Coolermaster GeminII; 2x4GB Kingston HyperX 1600Mhz; MSI R7-260X; 2x 128GB Crucial M4 SSD; 1TB WD Green, 2x 2TB WD Green; PC P&C 750W PS; Fractal Design Node 605;
Son's Rig: M5A97; 1055T; CNPS20LQ; 2x4GB Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz; ASUS GTX650Ti Boost; 80GB Intel 520 SSD; 320GB WD Black HDD; SPI 700W; Bitfenix Shinobi;
Reply With Quote
  #65 (permalink)  
Old June 14, 2012, 09:46 AM
MVP
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by great_big_abyss View Post
Here is an interesting read.

It's a great example of the bloated prices that Apple applies to its products, and how they're able to sell their products using 'magical' and 'incredible' lingo which, ultimately, mean nothing at all (except to boost the egos of latte sipping hipsters).
Ars has a good article on what the next Mac Pro should look like: What should the long-awaited Mac Pro update look like? | Ars Technica

Likely the reason they haven't pushed out a significant update is because there's no good solution for displayport over Thunderbolt with Xeons without pass-through cables.
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old June 14, 2012, 09:58 AM
great_big_abyss's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,211

My System Specs

Default

Just look at some of the upgrade prices on the MacPro portion of the Apple website.

32GB of memory, add $975 -- and we're talking about either 1066 or 1333 Ram, this isn't superfast 2133 Ram.

It comes stock with a 1TB HDD. An extra 512MB SSD is $1000. An extra 2TB 7200rpm HDD is $300.

Which is actually reasonable compared to the extra super-multi drive you can have installed for $100. And when I say super-multi, I don't mean BD-R, I mean DVD-RW. A DVD writer goes for, what? $20 on NCIX?

Hell, to add another 5770 in order to run X-fire 5770s you have to add $250. For one extra 5770. WTF?

Seriously, if Mac Pro users don't see that they're getting ripped off, (especially in the light that Protools runs on Windows now) then they're idiots.
__________________



HTPC: Z77A-G45; 3770K; Coolermaster GeminII; 2x4GB Kingston HyperX 1600Mhz; MSI R7-260X; 2x 128GB Crucial M4 SSD; 1TB WD Green, 2x 2TB WD Green; PC P&C 750W PS; Fractal Design Node 605;
Son's Rig: M5A97; 1055T; CNPS20LQ; 2x4GB Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz; ASUS GTX650Ti Boost; 80GB Intel 520 SSD; 320GB WD Black HDD; SPI 700W; Bitfenix Shinobi;
Reply With Quote
  #67 (permalink)  
Old June 14, 2012, 10:05 AM
MacJunky's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Creston, BC
Posts: 1,726

My System Specs

Default

It should be noted that Apple never ever ever updates ALL of it's products at the same time. The desktops will be coming next.
Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old June 14, 2012, 10:37 AM
MVP
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by great_big_abyss View Post
Just look at some of the upgrade prices on the MacPro portion of the Apple website.

32GB of memory, add $975 -- and we're talking about either 1066 or 1333 Ram, this isn't superfast 2133 Ram.

It comes stock with a 1TB HDD. An extra 512MB SSD is $1000. An extra 2TB 7200rpm HDD is $300.

Which is actually reasonable compared to the extra super-multi drive you can have installed for $100. And when I say super-multi, I don't mean BD-R, I mean DVD-RW. A DVD writer goes for, what? $20 on NCIX?

Hell, to add another 5770 in order to run X-fire 5770s you have to add $250. For one extra 5770. WTF?

Seriously, if Mac Pro users don't see that they're getting ripped off, (especially in the light that Protools runs on Windows now) then they're idiots.
That's par for the course for workstations, it's not an Apple-specific thing.

Taking a look at Dell's T7600 workstation, upping to 32GB of 1600MHz memory is $720, adding a 256MB SSD is $1000, adding a 2TB HDD is $600, adding a second Quadro 5000 video card is $2165.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacJunky View Post
It should be noted that Apple never ever ever updates ALL of it's products at the same time. The desktops will be coming next.
Well, they did update the Mac Pro, it's just a really weak update that still doesn't make it worth buying.
Reply With Quote
  #69 (permalink)  
Old June 14, 2012, 10:59 AM
MacJunky's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Creston, BC
Posts: 1,726

My System Specs

Default

You know what I mean. They do not /properly/ update all the products at the same time.
Reply With Quote
  #70 (permalink)  
Old June 14, 2012, 11:33 AM
great_big_abyss's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,211

My System Specs

Default

They're still charging $2600 for a machine using 2010 components.
__________________



HTPC: Z77A-G45; 3770K; Coolermaster GeminII; 2x4GB Kingston HyperX 1600Mhz; MSI R7-260X; 2x 128GB Crucial M4 SSD; 1TB WD Green, 2x 2TB WD Green; PC P&C 750W PS; Fractal Design Node 605;
Son's Rig: M5A97; 1055T; CNPS20LQ; 2x4GB Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz; ASUS GTX650Ti Boost; 80GB Intel 520 SSD; 320GB WD Black HDD; SPI 700W; Bitfenix Shinobi;
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Please tell me the point of a retina screened ipad muse108dc Mobile Computing 18 March 2, 2012 06:57 PM
Macbook DHCP kendallcschm Mac 5 April 2, 2011 11:10 AM
new macbook air m1dget Mac 20 December 5, 2010 07:46 PM
RAM for Macbook Pro Skootles RAM 5 December 2, 2008 07:15 PM
[WTB] Macbook Pro CrazyScott Buy/Sell & Trade 0 November 30, 2008 07:54 AM