Sounds good! Of course, I'll wait a year or two until the retina display 1) isn't a rev A product and 2) only costs marginally more than a standard display. Should come at about the time I want to replace my MBP 
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
13-Inch Retina MacBook Pro Reportedly Still on Track for 4Q 2012 Launch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good news then, Apple doesn't charge more for the retina display over the standard display.
Quad-Core?
Any news on whether it will stick with the 13-inch dual core architecture or make the jump to Quad-Core? Please...QCi7, thanks.
Any news on whether it will stick with the 13-inch dual core architecture or make the jump to Quad-Core? Please...QCi7, thanks.
I'll disagree with you there, but only to the degree that it's stated as an absolute. (Yes, I'm nit-picking.
)What really matters is a combination of pixel count and screen size. At either extreme (enormous screen w/ tiny pixel count or tiny screen w/ enormous pixel count), things get useless. Exactly where the 'sweet spot' is on size vs. pixel count falls is dependent on user preferences.
That said, once you hit 'retina', it's really only the screen size that matters, since more pixels won't actually do you any good without also giving more room for them.
I'll disagree with you there, but only to the degree that it's stated as an absolute. (Yes, I'm nit-picking.
Since we're not discussing edge cases of 50" monitors running 640x480 or 3.5" screens running 2560x1600, then your nit-pick is noted but I'll stick to my "absolutes".
Discussing things like 15" vs 17", the PPI differences for the stated resolutions are minimal. People just don't understand the relationship between "windows side by side" and pixel count, and mistake it to screen size.
Screen size still doesn't matter for Retina. A 2880x1800 display on a 15" or 17" makes no discernable difference.
Good news! The retina display on the 15" MBP allows for extra real-estate with a 1920x1200 mode. The 13" should allow up to 1680x1050.
Agreed. As I said, I was nit-picking.
I don't quite agree here, because (assuming you're at 'retina' for either screen size at that pixel-count) The 17" display gives you more *physical* real-estate where things can be displayed, with the same visible level of detail per square-inch. The ultra-high resolutions of 'retina' displays make this a viable option, where it doesn't quite work out the same way if you're dealing with, say, 1080p on both displays.
It's not *quite* resolution independence, but it's a good step along the way to making that particular goal easier to reach.
I'll take a 15'' MBA with native 1680x1050 over this any day.
But... scaled 1920x1200 on the 15" rMPB is really nice, even though it's laggy as hell when running on the intel gpu due to the supersampling.
If scaled 1680x1050 on the 13" rMBP looks as good and isn't too laggy I will probably sell my 13" MBA and get that.
But... scaled 1920x1200 on the 15" rMPB is really nice, even though it's laggy as hell when running on the intel gpu due to the supersampling.
If scaled 1680x1050 on the 13" rMBP looks as good and isn't too laggy I will probably sell my 13" MBA and get that.
Pixel count really means nothing to me quite frankly. I'm not a pro photographer. Screen size is far more important because I do a lot of multi-tasking. The 17" MBP was a perfect trade-off between screen size and portability. Without that I would probably now buy an iMac for my desktop and a MBA for when I'm travelling. I hate using external screens, it's such a messy and ugly compromise.
----------
All that does is make the text/icons/etc smaller on the screen to the point where I have troubled reading the bloody things.
That is not what I want. I just want a "bigger" screen. I don't care about pixels and that crap. I want to have 2 or more windows open side by side so I can flip between them. Simply making the text smaller by increasing the pixels doesn't help because then I have to make the window larger to read the text.
Just bring back the freakin 17" MBP. That's what we want. Simple.
----------
I would agree with that. Sadly I find myself disagreeing more and more with the direction Apple is moving in. I realise that means nothing to the powers that be but all the same it's disappointing for me as a long standing Apple and Mac customer. I've started to drift more and more towards other brands as Apple fails to meet my requirements for larger screens whether that be the 17" MBP or the 4" iPhone. Shame.
I'm a programmer. You think you need to multi-task ? I need so many frigging windows open, all with text in them. Gimme 15" 1920x1200 any day of the week though. It fits the same number of pixels of a 17" 1920x1200, thus it fits the same number of windows with the same code displayed in them.
Identical real-estate. Externals are even better, coupled with the internal monitor, it's best of both worlds.
What's messy about external ? They sit on a desk, no more messy than a desktop. Plus with the external keyboard and mouse and the mDesign stand I use, it just looks great.
Text on a 1920x1200 15" screen is perfectly readable for anyone with below average eye vision (I have some bad eyesight myself).
Making the windows larger displays more text, it doesn't help in reading the text. You need to start understanding how screen real-estate works.
A 17" screen running at a lower pixel count doesn't help you have more windows open side by side. Pixel count is what matters.
Absolutely not. I've tried that. What you don't seem to understand is that increasing the pixel count doesn't magically create more real-estate, it simply shrinks the size of the text/icons/etc so you can fit more in the same window. It's a bit like simply writing on piece of paper using smaller handwriting. Yes you might fit more handwriting on the page but then you can't read it back because it's so small.
That doesn't help me at all because I then struggle to read the text. If you find the 13" or the 15" MBP screen size works for you then great, but it's the same old argument - why do Apple keep taking away options that at least some users clearly want, like a 17" MBP - stick a retina screen on it if that helps. I can always adjust the resolution back to something more comfortable for me.
That's precisely what real-estate is. More pixels = more stuff showing up on screen even though it is smaller.
And you're definately exagerrating the size difference between a 15" and 17" screen. Those 2 inches don't really make that big of a difference at 1920x1200. It's 133 PPI for the 17" vs 150 PPI for the 15".
130ish PPI screens are just starting to be in the realm of acceptable if you ask me. It's ludicrous that Apple's highest density laptop monitor is the 11" MBA at 135 PPI. Dell had higher PPIs in the early 00s on their premium optional panels for god's sake.
my first laptop had a 1600x1200 resolution and after that I was always lucky to get 1920x1200 laptops from my customers or employers to use. Always 15" screens. Ideal resolution to me for a 15" and I initially bought a 17" MacBook Pro just for the resolution. The screen hinge was crap so I traded it in. Only now with the higher resolution on the 15" I find it an interesting laptop. still too low though.
I realize there hasn't been any uplifting news about the potential launch of a 13" rMBP in the past week, but could we move the discussion about screen resolutions to a different thread? I don't mean to be rude, and your discussion is valid and interesting, but I prefer that any thread notifications I get for the original topic are actually on topic. Thx!
The iPhone is a tiny 4" screen.
It just depends on how far away from your eyes the display is. I agree, the 13.3" size is too small for frequent use, but some people can make do.
And, sharpness, the Retina kind, makes smaller displays infinitely better than they were before.
So if people have made do with 13.3" notebook screens from Apple so far (its the most popular size by far), they'll be delighted going forward.
That's what I said. More stuff on the screen just smaller. I just don't want the smaller part because my eyesight is not what it was so I need to maintain a certain text size to be able to read it. Those extra 2 inches make a big difference if like me you're sat in front of your computer all day every day. It just makes it easier to flip between windows. Hey I'm not dissing anyone who is happy with their 13" or 15" MacBooks, it just for me and I think a lot of others we are very disappointed they ditched the 17" model. I will be very interested to see how many of the higher priced 15" Retina MBPs they sell given the price differential over the non Retina model.
Funny. Pixel count means nothing to me and I am a pro photographer.
I use a calibrated wide-gamut IPS panel. It's 96 dpi, and it's perfect for photo editing. And yes, size is far more important than dpi for photographic editing.
New iMacs - When? ?
Now that we know the Oct. 23 date for the iPad Mini unveiling, when the heck is Apple going to break out the refreshed iMacs?
Yes, I know they were having issues with the 27" displays, but what about the others?
Any credible sites out there that shed any light on this? Thanks!
Now that we know the Oct. 23 date for the iPad Mini unveiling, when the heck is Apple going to break out the refreshed iMacs?
Yes, I know they were having issues with the 27" displays, but what about the others?
Any credible sites out there that shed any light on this? Thanks!