Highest-resolution notebook display

[@ruantec]

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

The Macbook Pro still lasts longer. That's from my usage. I do #4 mostly, and I can't get more than 4 hours on the Slate 7 with #4, whereas I can easily get 10 hours out of my Macbook Pro, with a bigger physical screen, higher resolution, BIGGER BATTERY and a real keyboard...

Fixed for ya

__________________

Current development tools:

Visual C++.net, Visual C#.net
Visual VB.net, Visual Webdeveloper.net
Bloodshed Dev C++, Borland C++
Visual Basic 6

[runawayprisoner]

But who cares? It also has a faster CPU and a dedicated GPU, too.

If you want to nitpick the new Macbook Pro the right way, allow me to demonstrate:

1) Higher res screen is useless until more apps and websites support it.

2) The glass itself is the screen, so if you break or crack that, it's game over.

3) With point #2 and the fact that the device is thinner (thinner than Macbook Air, even), it's more brittle and less rigid than the current Macbook Pro.

4) There's a new vent, which breaks Apple's elegant design path:


Now this begs the question: if the vents are blocked, does the device overheat? I'd bet the answer is a big YES in bold because the components inside (quad-core CPU with high Turbo Boost, dedicated GPU) are really heavy hitters when it comes to thermal emission. This means the design is a regression and not a progression since the last Macbook Pro could be used on a pillow just fine. This new one can't.

5) RAM is soldered on, so good luck trying to upgrade that.

6) SSD is a proprietary format, and it doesn't even support the Macbook Air's old port so good luck trying to upgrade that as well.

7) So from point #5 and #6, customizability and upgradability has been seriously hampered compared to current models. Here's another regression in design.

8) No optical drive, no built-in ethernet. Lugging along accessories is a pain.

9) At first glance, pricing may make sense, but then... it makes none because it's a $400 premium over a similar-spec'ed current generation (that means 2012) Macbook Pro 15". Basically, a $1799 MBP 15" 2012 + $400 = $2199 MBP w/ Retina!? But RAM upgrade from 4GB to 8GB is $20 and 256GB SSD can be had for a measly $120 (OEM pricing), which begs the question... is the better screen worth the $200 premium when next to nothing takes advantage of it?

10) And the worst offender of all, is this:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5996/h...andles-scaling

Apple offers five scaled settings including the default pixel doubled option: 1024 x 640, 1280 x 800, 1440 x 900, 1680 x 1050 and 1920 x 1200. Selecting any of these options gives you the effective desktop resolution of the setting, but Apple actually renders the screen at a higher resolution and scales it to fit the 2880 x 1800 panel. As a result of the upscaled rendering, there can be a performance and quality impact.

Doesn't bode well for anything that needs to run in a window.

So after considering those 10 points, I have to say... the tech this gen has yet to mature enough. The design could be better, and the screen resolution seems like it could be utilized in a better way. Seems like Apple is just patching up stuffs for now until Mountain Lion comes, but that's all the more reason to avoid this machine right now.

I'll wait until next year.

[Phil]

Bravo! Thank you Rap. Well done.

n_w95482, this is exactly what i needed to not buy it

__________________

Vision is the art of seeing what is invisible to others

[runawayprisoner]

Here's another reason not to buy this thing...

Call in to Apple: "You got any Retina display Macbook Pro in stock?"
Get asked a weird question: "Is this for business or personal?"

Now if you have played a dating sim game, your response pretty raises 2 different flags (WTF!?):

1) Flag 1: "It's for myself, so personal"
"We're sorry. We don't have any in stock, and we have no idea when we'll get them."
"Thanks."

2) Flag 2: "My boss is considering an overhaul for the office"
"Let me get the manager for you." (oh sh...)
"Hello, sir. Retina Macbook Pro, was it? We got some in stock today, but they were sold out fast. It seems we will get another batch of about 100 units in 5 days time. Would you care to leave your email so that we can notify you the moment we get an exact timeline?"

... "we have no idea when we'll get them" my arse!

By the way, that was the very same store.

Can't believe Apple is trying to pull a Dell here... I knew the business trick from having to deal with Dell before, but... never had the same thing with Apple.

[n_w95482]

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

AutoCAD under Mac gets the VIP treatment, by the way. It requires a Quadro under Windows for accelerated drawing performance, but under Mac, not only is the interface better (it's more reminiscent of Photoshop), it also performs faster. It still has quirks with print profiles and other things, but for drafting, it's pure joy.

Makes me wonder why they can't just update the Windows version..

Strange, I've turned on various hardware acceleration options in AutoCAD before on low-end cards (think Radeon 2400 Pro) and it says it's enabled and working correctly. Hell, a couple of them even turn on with older Intel integrated graphics. The versions in question are AutoCAD Civil 3D 2008 and 2010.

Originally Posted by Kaizen

Well, with new emerging non established technologies there's usually only one or two base manufacturers for the first product cycle. If windows laptops come out with the same res and size screen as the macbooks then it's likely they will be the same screens in both.

I believe this is the case with that strange res 27" mac screen, that the only matching res alternative after a fairly long period is a dell monitor with the very same panel as mac uses.
Edit: Yep, the 27" cinema has the same panel as the dell U2711.

That would probably be the case, if it happens. Again, most of the crap out there is, well, crap. Tons of 1366x768 screens in there, even in stuff that costs upwards of $1500. Unacceptable IMO. Hopefully this spurs other laptop manufacturers to step up their game, but I'm not very optimistic.

Overall screen quality is the main reason why I'm still running my Inspiron E1705 laptop, which I got in early 2006. I'm disappointed it's taken this long for laptop displays to take a big step forward. About the only thing that's happened since I got my laptop was LED backlighting, which can be a good or bad thing depending on how you value the various benefits and drawbacks.

__________________
Later.

[runawayprisoner]

Originally Posted by n_w95482

Strange, I've turned on various hardware acceleration options in AutoCAD before on low-end cards (think Radeon 2400 Pro) and it says it's enabled and working correctly. Hell, a couple of them even turn on with older Intel integrated graphics. The versions in question are AutoCAD Civil 3D 2008 and 2010.

If you really want to see whether AutoCAD performance is great or not with a particular GPU, turn off "adaptive degradation" in Preferences, then find a relatively complex 3D model, switch it to Conceptual view and start rotating.

"Hardware acceleration" in AutoCAD most of the time just pertains to 2D stuffs and really have no bearing on the 3D performance side of the equation. Only a handful of the options pertain to 3D, and I don't think Intel graphics supports many of the 3D features.

[n_w95482]

Ah, that would probably be why I haven't gotten any complaints from the department that uses that software. I haven't seen them display anything in 3D, just 2D drawings. I'll have to check it out some more.

__________________
Later.

[runawayprisoner]

Anyway, Anandtech reviewed the new display. Looks like a few of my theories were proven wrong, or Anand was wrong.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/m...splay-analysis

1) It's indeed an IPS panel even if Apple themselves don't say so.
2) Desktop is limited to 1920 x 1200 (likely due to text and UI element size) but games can still see 2880 x 1800.
3) Diablo 3 seem playable at 2880 x 1800. God... makes me envious.
4) Black level is improved drastically.

No color gamut analysis yet, but I'd be interested in seeing how this display fares against RGB LED.

[Xianrad]

Makes me want to sell my Mac....but I can't go to a 15" screen from a 17" one.

__________________
Love is of all passions the strongest for it attacks simultaneously the head the heart and the senses

[runawayprisoner]

And I would recommend that you don't. 1920 x 1200 on a 15" screen is... tiny. Very very very tiny.

Plus from my brief hands-on time, it's laggy when scrolling in pretty much... anything. Safari gets it worse because it lags both in scrolling and zooming.

In any case, God... the screen... is truly insane. Easily the best screen I have looked at. Ever.

[Princess Garnet]

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

1920 x 1200 on a 15" screen is... tiny. Very very very tiny.

No kidding.

My sister got a secondhand laptop about a year ago for her son, and she asked me to look at it. It was "restarting every time it went to load", which turned out being a BSOD, so I disabled automatic restart and the STOP code looked like it could be a bad install or a bad HDD. She said he was using to play Animal Jam and it just froze, and then did that. Who knows if he got mad or whatever.

Anyway, it turns out it's an older Dell workstation, but what put me off most was the 1920 x 1200 display. It was tiny. Seeing that reminded me of this thread. I'm not sure of the screen size (I just looked it up and it's 15.4" and apparently was offered in resolutions of at least 1280 x 800, 1680 x 1050, and 1920 x 1200), but it was very small for that. 1680 x 1050 wasn't available by default, so I just used 1440 x 900, much as interpolation is evil.

__________________
"The heart has it's reasons that reason knows nothing of."

[runawayprisoner]

Well, actually, I retract what I said earlier.

Since... I actually got one of these things now!

Let's see...

1) Apple tweaked the resolution somehow, and now 1920 x 1200 is very viewable on the 15" screen. It looked tinny before, but now it looks like perfection between usable screen real estate and human visibility.

2) Mountain Lion somehow fixed the scaling algorithm of Lion, and now the Retina MacBook Pro is perfectly smooth 60fps even at 3840 x 2400 scaled down to 2880 x 1800. Boss software engineering at work there... RAM usage is insane compared to non-Retina MacBook, though. Looks like 8GB isn't just for show.

3) Windows 7 with proper DPI scaling (disable that "Windows XP style DPI scaling") looks VERY BOSS on the Retina Display.

4) Most game UIs are unreadable (Diablo 3 being a prime example) at this resolution. I had to downgrade the resolution not because the computer could not take it but because my eyes could not take it.

5) Games look awesome otherwise. Apple DID cheat and pre-overclock the GeForce 650M in this laptop to a whooping 900MHz core clock. It handled Crysis 2, COD MW3 at 1920 x 1200 like a champ. SFxT and SF4 at 2880 x 1800 look very very very awesome! Will post screenshots later.

Overall, I am enjoying this display more than I thought I would. The weight saving and other improvements are nice, too.