Buyer's remorse: Bought Thunderbolt Display after buying RMBP

[maclab]

I gave my thunderbolt display to my wife to use, I find the blur to annoying now looking at anything else. If I need extra space I just change the display settings, it would have been great if there was an easy toggle switch for that.

 

[HishamAkhtar]

You'll be waiting a very long time.

Really? I think if they announce retina iMacs then retina Cinema Displays can't be too far behind.

----------

I gave my thunderbolt display to my wife to use, I find the blur to annoying now looking at anything else. If I need extra space I just change the display settings, it would have been great if there was an easy toggle switch for that.

Haha I LOLed at this. Hate a product --> give it to the wife.

 

[ixodes]

Calibration can make colors seem brighter and sharper, and can increase contrast which in turn makes most text look crisper. If it's done properly, it can make a huge difference in how the display looks. It still might not be what the OP wants, but is at least worth a try. Anyone willing to spend that much cash on a display should be more than willing to calibrate it properly, in my opinion; that especially goes for people using both displays at the same time. If they're not calibrated, everything will look vastly different on one display than on the other.

Kudos... Very well said!

Both at home & at work, calibration is a normal part of my setup routine. Especially in my case since I use dual ATB's, along with my various MBP's & MBA's. If I failed to calibrate, it'd drive me crazy

Therefore if one is spending the time & money on an exemplary monitor, taking the time to calibrate it, is simply part of the process.

To just plug it in & judge it, only cheats oneself of a great experience.

 

[sweetbrat]

It will still look different unless you're taking steps to match them specifically. I realize you probably think I'm being argumentative here, but whenever someone says "calibration" it sounds like hardware values are being tuned to some kind of reference graph. It's not really the case. The colorimeter attempts to measure the output and organize a description of that hardware for the gpu. This can even out weirdness in gamma, which would achieve the effect you mentioned. It cannot actually increase contrast ratios. These software bundles have no direct ability to apply hardware instructions, so what you're seeing is a change in gains there by what is fed to the framebuffer. I could still see the argument of it improving text, but I don't think it will make up for such a huge level of disdain.

If you're trying to match displays, this really requires that kind of feature in the software, otherwise it's too annoying. This means whichever one has a greater range will be compressed to the level of the other. I'm pretty sure the thunderbolt display is technically higher in overall contrast ratio. This has nothing to do with opinions on which is better. I'm simply referring to a ratio between black and white point luminance at greater than 50% brightness. If you go really low, the behavior might go a little more weird. At that point I don't know which would hold up better.

I've tested most of the available calibration/profiling software including i1 profiler, basicolor, coloreyes, spectraview (US version), and some of the older versions of Datacolor's software. I haven't tried all of them in their most recent versions, but I've spent more time messing with this stuff trying to figure out what grants the best shadow detail and greyscale than I wish to remember. It makes a difference. It's just that given the TB display's slightly restricted options and the complete disdain of the OP, I think he'd be best off not getting stuck with such a display. The colorimeter isn't a bad buy either way. It's worth using on the rMBP.

I get what you're saying, and yes, it most likely will still look different. But if the opinion the OP gave us is based on the TB display with no calibration at all, it's at least worth trying. If someone needs a setup that's exact over two monitors, chances are they're a professional, in which case they're likely using two of the same kind of displays, both professionally calibrated. I don't think that's the case here, though. It sounds like the OP is just underwhelmed with the TB display. Calibration can't fix everything, but the differences between a calibrated and uncalibrated monitor can be huge, even just using the calibration that's included in System Preferences. I wasn't trying to say that it can magically solve all the OP's problems, but that a few minutes spent calibrating may provide enough improvement that he/she will be satisfied with the TB display instead of needing to return it. It's at least worth a try, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Blackberryroid]

if you consider a year a very long time I suppose.

It's not just a year. 3 years, I think. Maybe even 5-10. It's not easy to manufacture 220 PPI for a 27 Inch display! How many pixels is that, 16000x10000? Or maybe even more! That pixel density is just going to increase the price, power consumption, and probably even a thicker display.

I wouldn't get my hopes high.

 

[PS65]

It's not just a year. 3 years, I think. Maybe even 5-10. It's not easy to manufacture 220 PPI for a 27 Inch display! How many pixels is that, 16000x10000? Or maybe even more! That pixel density is just going to increase the price, power consumption, and probably even a thicker display.

I wouldn't get my hopes high.

Good luck, I tried to explain that to him - but he doesn't grasp that or the GPU requirements!

 

[Blackberryroid]

clearly that is the case, in internetz land.

Guess you clearly didn't realize that when you go to "looks like 1920x1200" mode on the current gen rMBP it actually renders the desktop at 3840x2400. GPU's can handle extremely high resolution output. It's an OS not a video game.

You're right; it can handle high resolution output. But that isn't what Apple is worried about. Since it's a Pro computer, when you start doing intense tasks, you'll definitely be complaining. Even for everyday tasks, you'll be dumbing the display for the first few seconds. And Apple knows what kind of people will hook their computers up to this display. For a display, it has a freaking huge price tag only professionals can afford. And that means intense tasks.

And even if it could handle high resolution output, it would probably be at 10 FPS. You know what happens when a Mac boots in Safe Mode? The graphics will be that horrible. Yes, the resolution is supported, but the UI elements are just not smooth. When you go to the dock, you'll be seeing the frames rendering when the icons are being magnified. When you scroll down a web page, you'll be seeing lagging. When you're watching movies, it would feel like Need For Speed on a 2002 Integrated Graphics card. It's choppy. It's not just about showing the screen. It's also about rendering the elements.

And since you mentioned video games, the Display on the Graphics card will not stand a chance. I would bet 5 Seconds per frame (1/5 FPS). That slow. We don't have the technology to power up a display, what more for 3D?

The thing is, don't expect this 220 PPI, 27 Inches display in 5-10 years. It's just not possible.

----------

Good luck, I tried to explain that to him - but he doesn't grasp that or the GPU requirements!

Let's see about that.

 

[Boe11]

still dont get people with 1000 monitor

When you can justify a $2000-$3000 computer, it gets easier to justify a $1000 monitor. They are pretty sweet though.

 

[gentlefury]

You're right; it can handle high resolution output. But that isn't what Apple is worried about. Since it's a Pro computer, when you start doing intense tasks, you'll definitely be complaining. Even for everyday tasks, you'll be dumbing the display for the first few seconds. And Apple knows what kind of people will hook their computers up to this display. For a display, it has a freaking huge price tag only professionals can afford. And that means intense tasks.

And even if it could handle high resolution output, it would probably be at 10 FPS. You know what happens when a Mac boots in Safe Mode? The graphics will be that horrible. Yes, the resolution is supported, but the UI elements are just not smooth. When you go to the dock, you'll be seeing the frames rendering when the icons are being magnified. When you scroll down a web page, you'll be seeing lagging. When you're watching movies, it would feel like Need For Speed on a 2002 Integrated Graphics card. It's choppy. It's not just about showing the screen. It's also about rendering the elements.

And since you mentioned video games, the Display on the Graphics card will not stand a chance. I would bet 5 Seconds per frame (1/5 FPS). That slow. We don't have the technology to power up a display, what more for 3D?

The thing is, don't expect this 220 PPI, 27 Inches display in 5-10 years. It's just not possible.

----------



Let's see about that.

It's not just a year. 3 years, I think. Maybe even 5-10. It's not easy to manufacture 220 PPI for a 27 Inch display! How many pixels is that, 16000x10000? Or maybe even more! That pixel density is just going to increase the price, power consumption, and probably even a thicker display.

I wouldn't get my hopes high.

And you think in a years time computers will be exactly the same power as they are today. Very forward thinking, you are.

As for 220PPI....that isn't an accurate figure, also thanks for pulling numbers directly from your ass, it makes you look very smart (16,000x10,000 on a 27" would be about 698PPI....close).

So far all of apple "retina" displays have gotten smaller ppi ratings the bigger the screen gets, since it is based on the ability to distinguish pixels from a nominal viewing distance. The iPhone is 326ppi, the iPad is 264ppi, the 15.4" Macbook Pro is 220, which is the result of doubling the amount of effective pixels on screen. If they started off releasing a 24" Retina TBD the resolution would be 3840x2400, or 2x 1920x1200, resulting is a ppi of 189 and would qualify under their standards of "retina".

I don't know about you, but people running their current rMBP in 3840x2400 in scaling mode known as "looks like 1920x1200" are not getting 1 fps...as a matter of fact, most people are saying it runs perfectly fine. If your display were running at that resolution natively it would run even better, since it wouldn't have the added burden of scaling. A 27" (not likely, they will more than likely release a 24" retina and hold off on the 27") would be 5120x2880, resulting in a ppi of 218. That would be a bit more difficult to process intense tasks...but in a year or two, I'm sure the iPad hardware will be able to drive that spec. Also, don't forget. It would not be entirely beyond belief, (or profitability) to put a graphics chip into the display itself and use a thunderbolt connection to have it assist in tasks.

The problem isn't that I don't know what I'm talking about, its that you have no clue and just want to feel superior. Or maybe you just like to join the crowd. If one person disagrees we should all disagree. Or maybe you are just extremely short-sighted, have no knowledge of computers other than what you read on blogs and just regurgitate what you read to make you feel like you know something.

I make a living by pushing computers to their limits. I have worked on the highest of the high end computers for my entire career. I understand how they progress. I also know resolution, as I also have to work with that on a daily basis. So don't come off assuming I don't know anything.

 

[iLikeTurtles!]

When you can justify a $2000-$3000 computer, it gets easier to justify a $1000 monitor. They are pretty sweet though.

thats a computer...this is solely a display lLOL

 

[Blackberryroid]

And you think in a years time computers will be exactly the same power as they are today. Very forward thinking, you are.

As for 220PPI....that isn't an accurate figure, also thanks for pulling numbers directly from your ass, it makes you look very smart (16,000x10,000 on a 27" would be about 698PPI....close).

So far all of apple "retina" displays have gotten smaller ppi ratings the bigger the screen gets, since it is based on the ability to distinguish pixels from a nominal viewing distance. The iPhone is 326ppi, the iPad is 264ppi, the 15.4" Macbook Pro is 220, which is the result of doubling the amount of effective pixels on screen. If they started off releasing a 24" Retina TBD the resolution would be 3840x2400, or 2x 1920x1200, resulting is a ppi of 189 and would qualify under their standards of "retina".

I don't know about you, but people running their current rMBP in 3840x2400 in scaling mode known as "looks like 1920x1200" are not getting 1 fps...as a matter of fact, most people are saying it runs perfectly fine. If your display were running at that resolution natively it would run even better, since it wouldn't have the added burden of scaling. A 27" (not likely, they will more than likely release a 24" retina and hold off on the 27") would be 5120x2880, resulting in a ppi of 218. That would be a bit more difficult to process intense tasks...but in a year or two, I'm sure the iPad hardware will be able to drive that spec. Also, don't forget. It would not be entirely beyond belief, (or profitability) to put a graphics chip into the display itself and use a thunderbolt connection to have it assist in tasks.

The problem isn't that I don't know what I'm talking about, its that you have no clue and just want to feel superior. Or maybe you just like to join the crowd. If one person disagrees we should all disagree. Or maybe you are just extremely short-sighted, have no knowledge of computers other than what you read on blogs and just regurgitate what you read to make you feel like you know something.

I make a living by pushing computers to their limits. I have worked on the highest of the high end computers for my entire career. I understand how they progress. I also know resolution, as I also have to work with that on a daily basis. So don't come off assuming I don't know anything.

I don't know about you, but are you serious that you think the 27 Inch Display is possible? And the GPU would support that thing?

Seriously. Think about it. If it really was possible, Apple would have released one. But look at what they came up with. 2880 x 1880. Yes, it runs fine, but that's 15 Inches. Let's think bigger. Let's think 27 Inches. Even in 3 years, computer wouldn't be able to power up that much pixels. AGAIN, think about SERIOUS GAMING. SERIOUS GRAPHICS EDITING. SERIOUS AE. I'm pretty sure the resolution will eat that graphics card up, what more about the rendering of 4K videos?

It is possible that computers in the future will be able to power that display (On a high end computer), but what about intensive tasks? That display is much likely to be expensive and people who will be buying them are pros. And pros do heavy things. With this kind of resolution, do you think it is still possible to work with serious things?

You don't even know if the computers will improve dramatically in the few more years. News says that we're nearing the end of Moore's law.

 

[Boe11]

thats a computer...this is solely a display lLOL

I can always tell I'm dealing with a powerful mind when they tag not just an lol, but a capital LOL to the end of their own statement.

 

[maflynn]

[MOD NOTE]
Lets stop the bickering and arguing.

 

[iLikeTurtles!]

I can always tell I'm dealing with a powerful mind when they tag not just an lol, but a capital LOL to the end of their own statement.

thats not a reposnse to my post nor answers it, thats just someone being a smart a$$ on a forums page

 

[BeachChair]

I don't think iMac retina displays are that far away.

Some points to consider

- The current 27 inch iMac has 109 ppi
- Doubling the ppi from 109 to 218 would increase the resolution from 3.7 Mp to 14.75 Mp
- Meanwhile, the rMBP has 5.2 Mp
- An iMac wouldn't need as high ppi as the rMBP to be considered retina
- UI elements are already a bit small as it is at the current resolution of 2560x1440
- If they instead make it HiDPI 2048x1280 (4096x2560)
- ... it would have 179 ppi, and 10.5 Mp

Twice the pixels to drive as the rMBP. At worst, it would have half the framerate of the rMBP, given the same CPU, GPU and OS.
Given a year of hardware and software progress, it might run very reasonably.
The rMBP can already drive about 8 Mp in HiDPI 1920x1200 mode.

Now if such a display can be manufactured right now, I don't know. I didn't think the 15" inch retina screen could.

 

[King Shady]

I don't think iMac retina displays are that far away.

Some points to consider

- The current 27 inch iMac has 109 ppi
- Doubling the ppi from 109 to 218 would increase the resolution from 3.7 Mp to 14.75 Mp
- Meanwhile, the rMBP has 5.2 Mp
- An iMac wouldn't need as high ppi as the rMBP to be considered retina
- UI elements are already a bit small as it is at the current resolution of 2560x1440
- If they instead make it HiDPI 2048x1280 (4096x2560)
- ... it would have 179 ppi, and 10.5 Mp

Twice the pixels to drive as the rMBP. At worst, it would have half the framerate of the rMBP, given the same CPU, GPU and OS.
Given a year of hardware and software progress, it might run very reasonably.
The rMBP can already drive about 8 Mp in HiDPI 1920x1200 mode.

Now if such a display can be manufactured right now, I don't know. I didn't think the 15" inch retina screen could.

+1. I agree with you - however Apple is not known for putting cutting edge specs in the iMac line (you can build a much more powerful PC for much cheaper, but that's a different discussion). I think if Apple really wanted to, they could make a Retina iMac; however, it would need powerful dual gpu's - something that I hope Apple would consider.

 

[thekev]

I get what you're saying, and yes, it most likely will still look different. But if the opinion the OP gave us is based on the TB display with no calibration at all, it's at least worth trying. If someone needs a setup that's exact over two monitors, chances are they're a professional, in which case they're likely using two of the same kind of displays, both professionally calibrated. I don't think that's the case here, though. It sounds like the OP is just underwhelmed with the TB display. Calibration can't fix everything, but the differences between a calibrated and uncalibrated monitor can be huge, even just using the calibration that's included in System Preferences. I wasn't trying to say that it can magically solve all the OP's problems, but that a few minutes spent calibrating may provide enough improvement that he/she will be satisfied with the TB display instead of needing to return it. It's at least worth a try, as far as I'm concerned.

I get your points. I've dealt with many of these, and I don't feel a decent colorimeter is a bad purchase for a rMBP, even if that is your only display. My other opinions are based on the idea that the OP should return it within the time limit if he feels unsatisfied with the purchase. Otherwise it goes beyond that and you're stuck with it. I should have mentioned that if he does this, he should give each display at least 30 minutes to warm up, try to dim ambient light as much as possible, and leave the colorimeter plugged in 10 minutes prior to running its measurements. This ensures as much consistency as possible. These are also the suggested guidelines, but i'm not sure how many people read them.

 

[Tankmaze]

Unless the rTBD starts to carry it's own onboard graphics card, I don't see this happening. 27" external retina would be a helluva massive load for any notebook GPU to handle.

If they release it with those specs for the current price, I could see a lot of people getting onto that ride. Hell, even if it didn't have a retina display!

Thats a different point of discussion really. Buying external display and not use the retina display on the mbp for long period of time / during work really doesnt make sense.

To drive the retina 27"l I agree it would not be possible on todays gpu notebook.
But think about it we never have higher dpi screen even when the technology is available, ie desktop gpu 10 years ago can support up to 2560 res, and look at where we now. There is no display higher than 200 dpi, I guess what i'm trying to say if apple can make the breakthrough here, it could possibly push the gpu tech on notebook to be more "robust".

 

[Brandon263]

OP here, thanks for the feedback.

For those who have the Thunderbolt Display and the MacBook Pro, what do you use the Thunderbolt Display for? And what advantages do you get from using the Thunderbolt Display vs. the Retina MacBook Pro's display?

On a side note, I just started listening to music using the Retina MacBook Pro's speakers and it sounds amazing (better than the Thunderbolt Display)!

 

[Fynd]

Opposite experience for me. I got one after and couldn't be happier. It did take a replacement, however, to get one without a ridiculous level of backlight bleeding and without the faded horizontal line problem.

Mine looks fantastic, very comparable to the RMBP screen just not quite as sharp when I sit super close.

I love all of that screen real estate, and I love that non-retina apps run perfectly on there (I use office alot, and when docked at home I have no issues with it)

 

[Brandon263]

For those who have the Thunderbolt Display and the Retina MacBook Pro, what do you use the Thunderbolt Display for? And what advantages do you get from using the Thunderbolt Display vs. the Retina MacBook Pro's display?

On a side note, I just started listening to music using the Retina MacBook Pro's speakers and it sounds amazing (better than the Thunderbolt Display)!

Anyone?