Am I the only one who doesn't get the hype about retina displays?

[Stetrain]

I mean really, what exactly is the advantage to having everything half the size?

Maybe this will help you understand.

Here's a full sized screenshot from Retina MBP at default resolution:

As you can see, everything is proportionally the same size as on a standard 1440x900 Macbook pro, but with more detail.

Everything that comes with the OS, pretty much all of Apple's apps, apps that use the standard Cocoa components for their UI, and all of the other apps that have been updated to support it in the last four months all draw with this higher detail.

Apps that haven't been updated yet (like Photoshop, which is supposed to be updated in the near future) display at the same size, just with less detail.

 

[cmChimera]

The guy doesn't understand how the technology works, I'm not surprised he isn't excited for it.

 

[pgiguere1]

OP simply doesn't know what a Retina display is. He seems to think a Retina display is a screen that makes everything smaller for no reason. It's not that at all and is in fact a solution to a problem.

The problem: Computer screens could be way sharper, but simply upping the resolution wouldn't be a good idea at some extent since, unlike say movies, UI elements are resolution-dependent and will occupy a fixed number of pixels rather than a fixed proportion of the screen. That means that UI elements would get super tiny I you don't update the software.

The solution: Increase the screen resolution anyway since it's the only way to make stuff sharper but rewrite software so that UI elements don't get too tiny and conserve the same screen proportion as on previous non-high resolution displays.

Retina displays are a mix of two things:
1) Super-high-resolution screen
2) New software so that UI elements don't get super tiny while maintaining sharpness

Get it?

It's the only way to increase resolution while maintaining usable software, and all computers will go through this transition at some point or another. Windows has another way of scaling UI elements with software but it's the same principle. They will probably release Windows software with high-res bitmaps too when the Windows 8 hype is over and manufacturers will make computers other than 1366x768 hybrid tablets.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

The high resolution of the retina display is fantastic. It is very annoying that it is not available with an anti-glare screen. Apple initially claimed that the screen has significantly reduced glare, but, in the Apple showroom, it looked just as bad as the regular glossy screens to me. Apple's love affair with "glossy" just baffles me.

 

[rocknblogger]

Huh? The retina display is nothing to do with size, but pixel density. Go and compare a print from an inkjet at 150 dots per inch and 300 dots per inch. If you can't see, or simply don't understand this picture:

Image

or this

Image

are you genuinely incapable of seeing any differences?!?!?!?

I suspect you know full well the difference, and just want to troll...

I was going to keep my mouth shut but this is a very deceiving example. Looking at too different screens under magnification like this will of course show a huge difference. Move two to three feet from those screens and the difference becomes imperceptible.

I sit about two feet from my monitors. With that in mind I went to the Apple store a couple months ago to see for myself. I'll be ready for a new MBP in the next couple of months so I am trying to make up my mind. So taking the distance that I sit at from the screen into account I could not tell the difference. Of course once I brought my face to within about a foot to 16 to 18 inches I could see the difference. So for me to pay a premium for the screen doesn't make sense. I have to decide between the thinness/weight and having the ability to make upgrades to some of the hardware myself. For me it's impossible to work all day on a 15" screen. I would go mad. I have two 27" monitors that work well. If anything I'll probably have to upgrade those too next year.

At this point I'm leaning towards the cMBP. For me it just makes more sense and to a degree I'll spend less and get more based on my own SSD, memory and storage.

 

[takeshi74]

Am I the only one who doesn't get the hype abour retina displays?

No one is ever the only on any topic. Don't see the point? Move on. Hype is subjective and no one option will ever suit every single person out there no matter what the topic.

 

[boy-better-know]

It really depends what you were using before, I came from a 2011 MacBook Air to the rMBP and the difference was clear to see but it wasn't night and day, but now when I use a friends 13" MBP non retina, the difference is clear. It definitely lives up to the hype if you ask me. It is just an absolute pleasure to look at and use.

 

[snaky69]

Is that really true though?
I find it difficult to believe your claim that the retina display will make my screen look like VHS to Blu Ray - especially as most software wont even display at the retina displays hi resolution.
My 17" MacBook Pro screen resolution is 1920 x 1200, isn't that nearly 'retina' from a normal viewing distance already anyway?
Whilst I'm sure that it's great for the software that does take advantage of it, doesn't it then become too small on a 15" display to be beneficial - let alone on a 13"?
I struggle reading things on my 1920 x 1200 MacBook Pro as it is!
Surely higher resolution on an even smaller screen, is just going to make everything too small?
Why people would get excited about a super high resolution display on a 13" screen is beyond me.

Compare an older iPhone (3G or 3GS) to an iPhone 4, 4S or 5 side by side, displaying the same content, if you don't see a difference immediately, refer to your nearest eye doctor.

 

[rocknblogger]

Have you actually used the retina MBP at all? What you say here is absolute nonsense. Almost every application out there works with the retina display out of box, because the HiDPI rendering is a feature of the OS X and Mac UI is vector-based. Some applications (ones that use pixel graphics or custom rendered UI) need an update, but again, many of them (such as MS Word) have been updated already and more are on their way.

----------



Its cheaper than the regular MBP.

From Apple US store:
15" regular MBP (8GB RAM/256GB SSD) - $2,399.00
15" retina MBP (8GB RAM/256GB SSD) - $2,199.00

Even if you byt the base model and upgrade it yourself, you end up with the a similar price for a significant heavier laptop.

P.S. $2,199.00 is $60 per month over assumed 36 month usable lifetime of the machine. I pay more for my internet subscription. For something one uses most of the tie, I wouldn't say its too expensive.

And this makes no sense whatsoever. Apple raised the price on the regular MBP to try to force customers into the retina. I'm not sure what the motivation is. The only thing that makes sense is that they want to get you into a faster upgrade cycle. I'm guessing they don't want you to keep your MBP beyond three years (maybe even two). I say that because that's about the time I start feeling the need to upgrade my hard drive or SSD and memory. The majority of my techie friends say the same thing when I asked them at what point in time do they upgrade. Some say about eighteen months but most say two to three years.

I honestly expected the regular MBP to either come down a bit in price or stay the same but with updated components (primarily an SSD and 8GB RAM standard. Instead they managed to raise the price.

 

[Queen6]

As for the technical it`s been explained enough; Retina is easier on the eyes, better viewing angles, greater contrast, more accurate colour, you have the ability to alter the size if your workspace on the fly thanks to scaling. portability is up, overall it`s really a great portable.

What i have found is that as you use the Retina more, you really begin to appreciate the machine more and more, five minutes in the Apple store not going to cut it. The only absolute downside if for those who like to tinker and the Retina`s extremely limited upgrade path.

Some will have genuine issue with the retina, the "Hater`s" and the rest...

As the individual you must filter the content of the internet very carefully, everyone is a "Pro", everyone the "expert", for the most part they are not, some are well informed, most far from it . If you need help to make a significant purchase, or qualification on hardware, wait for a recognised source, not the kid with 10 minutes hands on in Best Buy

psssst i give you a tip, all MBP are going to be Retina soon, Apple`s not noted for elaborate product lines

 

[nontroppo]

Move two to three feet from those screens and the difference becomes imperceptible.

Correct, the further away you are, the less useful pixel density becomes. Even at ~60cm I can see a substantial difference comparing my 27" Cinema display to my rMBP. And I suspect many people sit closer to laptop displays than large monitors, thus selecting the distance you use your large monitor at to judge a laptop is not really justified.

I much prefer being able to chose my detail (i.e. that it is limited to the aberrations and limits of my visual system; move closer for better detail), than be forced to a particular distance so I don't notice an inferior display. For example, text onscreen is often well at the limit of low DPI displays (why Microsoft hint fonts heavily), glyph detail is irrevocably lost at this density. On a high DPI display detail is retained, and I am in control of legibility in a way impossible on a low DPI display (our optical aberration is less destructive than pixel aberration). Add on top of that an IPS panel, lower glare if you are not going matte, and the great flexibility of the different HiDPI resolutions, and choosing a cMBP just doesn't add up in my mind display wise.

 

[stevelam]

Have you actually used the retina MBP at all? What you say here is absolute nonsense. Almost every application out there works with the retina display out of box, because the HiDPI rendering is a feature of the OS X and Mac UI is vector-based. Some applications (ones that use pixel graphics or custom rendered UI) need an update, but again, many of them (such as MS Word) have been updated already and more are on their way.

sorry but this is absolute BS. "almost every application"? a VERY limited selection of software has been updated for retina/hidpi. and the mac UI is NOT all vector based or else why would you would have to create multiple icons of different sizes for apps.

 

[rocknblogger]

I much prefer being able to chose my detail (i.e. that it is limited to the aberrations and limits of my visual system; move closer for better detail), than be forced to a particular distance so I don't notice an inferior display. For example, text onscreen is often well at the limit of low DPI displays (why Microsoft hint fonts heavily), glyph detail is irrevocably lost at this density. On a high DPI display detail is retained, and I am in control of legibility in a way impossible on a low DPI display (our optical aberration is less destructive than pixel aberration). Add on top of that an IPS panel, lower glare if you are not going matte, and the great flexibility of the different HiDPI resolutions, and choosing a cMBP just doesn't add up in my mind display wise.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but in my case since I work out of my home office and rarely have to see clients face to face it still doesn't make sense because 90% of the time I'm using my external monitors. It is the rare occasion that I use my MBP screen at all. I usually use in clam shell mode anyway and when I don't it sits a solid two feet away. I normally have to bend down closer to see certain things. I usually leave Mail.app or Reeder open on that screen.

If I used it at least 50% of the time by itself without external displays I would probably feel differently. But since I don't then I'm not going to see the benefit of the screen hence it doesn't make sense for me.

Also this may sound surprising but I would most likely buy the rMBP or rMBA in a 13". With a screen that size I know I would be a lot closer to the screen when using it. In this case it makes sense to me. And I would consider it on a 17" because I would use that more often close up too. As a matter of fact I would almost certainly get a 13" or 11" rMBA to complement my iPad.

 

[terraphantm]

I was going to keep my mouth shut but this is a very deceiving example. Looking at too different screens under magnification like this will of course show a huge difference. Move two to three feet from those screens and the difference becomes imperceptible.

I sit about two feet from my monitors. With that in mind I went to the Apple store a couple months ago to see for myself. I'll be ready for a new MBP in the next couple of months so I am trying to make up my mind. So taking the distance that I sit at from the screen into account I could not tell the difference. Of course once I brought my face to within about a foot to 16 to 18 inches I could see the difference. So for me to pay a premium for the screen doesn't make sense. I have to decide between the thinness/weight and having the ability to make upgrades to some of the hardware myself. For me it's impossible to work all day on a 15" screen. I would go mad. I have two 27" monitors that work well. If anything I'll probably have to upgrade those too next year.

At this point I'm leaning towards the cMBP. For me it just makes more sense and to a degree I'll spend less and get more based on my own SSD, memory and storage.

If you really cannot see the difference at normal viewing distances, than you need glasses. The difference is night and day - my eyes are under so much less stress because text is so much easier to read (I tend to read a lot of journal articles on my laptop). I sit ~2 feet from the laptop in most cases. With 20/20 vision, you'd have to sit about 2.75 ft away for the differences to be imperceptible (even then only under low contrast situations since the human eye has much more sensitivity to high contrast imagery). 20/20 is merely average, so many people will be able to resolve the difference in details at even farther distances.

Under windows the difference is less pronounced. Windows' text rendering is much superior to OSX for readability. But the retina display adds nuances to the characters that would otherwise be unseen in Windows.

 

[leman]

sorry but this is absolute BS. "almost every application"? a VERY limited selection of software has been updated for retina/hidpi. and the mac UI is NOT all vector based or else why would you would have to create multiple icons of different sizes for apps.

1. Any software which uses Cocoa API is already retina-enabled as long at it does not do any weird things. Yes, this includes 'almost every application'. For example, I use FileMaker Pro 11, which doesn't have any official retina support, but it still utilises the HiDPI rendering mode (save for the splash screen). The only software which breaks down with HiDPI rendering is Skype.

2. Where did you see me talking about application icons or claiming that *ALL* UI is vector based? Actually, I clearly state that applications using pixel graphics must be updated. Anyway, all default Cocoa controls (buttons, windows, text) is vector based, so - again - as long as the application just uses Cocoa and does not do anything out of the box like custom rendering, it will be retina-enabled.

----------

And this makes no sense whatsoever. Apple raised the price on the regular MBP to try to force customers into the retina. I'm not sure what the motivation is.

Please get your facts straight.

Base MBP 2010: $1799
Base MBP 2011: $1799
Base MBP 2012: $1799

Where do you see the price increase? ^^

 

[rocknblogger]

1. Any software which uses Cocoa API is already retina-enabled as long at it does not do any weird things. Yes, this includes 'almost every application'. For example, I use FileMaker Pro 11, which doesn't have any official retina support, but it still utilises the HiDPI rendering mode (save for the splash screen). The only software which breaks down with HiDPI rendering is Skype.

2. Where did you see me talking about application icons or claiming that *ALL* UI is vector based? Actually, I clearly state that applications using pixel graphics must be updated. Anyway, all default Cocoa controls (buttons, windows, text) is vector based, so - again - as long as the application just uses Cocoa and does not do anything out of the box like custom rendering, it will be retina-enabled.

----------



Please get your facts straight.

Base MBP 2010: $1799
Base MBP 2011: $1799
Base MBP 2012: $1799

Where do you see the price increase? ^^

You misinterpreted what I meant. By 2012 standards the current "upgraded" $2199 MBP should have been the standard entry level. The entry level rMBP at $2199 gives you an SSD Drive AND retina AND 1GB of VRAM. Apple could have easily priced the regular MBP at $1799 but they didn't. This makes no sense unless you believe what I said earlier. They want you to buy the rMBP.

 

[MT0227]

I went in looking to purchase a fully loaded 13" MBA...after placing it next to the rMBP and pulling up some text and a few pictures on each, I walked out with a rMBP 15minutes later.

 

[kitzuki]

any point in getting on from a 15 oct 2011 inch antiglare? is it that much of a upgrade

 

[nontroppo]

I don't necessarily disagree with you but in my case since I work out of my home office and rarely have to see clients face to face it still doesn't make sense because 90% of the time I'm using my external monitors.

Yes, I would certainly agree with you that if you are in clamshell mode most of the time then little point in the retina display ... though the better cooling system and dual thunderbolts may still be of interest As a personal aside, with my previous MBP I always preferred my 27" external for work; but because of the clarity of text rendering, writing on the rMBP is the first time I've ever chosen my laptop display when given the choice (ergonomically raised to the correct height and with external keyboard of course). And working on RAW photos at 240DPI is the other space my 27" is starting to become less appealing over...

 

[M5RahuL]

any point in getting on from a 15 oct 2011 inch antiglare? is it that much of a upgrade

Depends on what you do, and how extensively you use your MBP.

The major upgrade would be the screen, of course. Everything else [ USB 3 ; 2 TB ports ; HDMI ; HD 4000 iGPU over the HD 3000 from 2011, Form Factor etc ] just depends on the user and how important those features are to them..

If you're using an external monitor or have no issues with the current system, and it suffices your requirements, it'd be an irrational upgrade IMO. If money is no object and you want a superior screen, then yes, it's a worthy upgrade.

However, you have a fairly new system and the Hi-Res + AG 15" is pretty darn good!!!

 

[frankdogg]

I mean really, what exactly is the advantage to having everything half the size?
I just don't understand what advantage a retina display gives the user.
We've managed to create and view hi resolution graphics, stunning photo's and fantastic HD movies long before there were retina displays on laptops.
Isn't it just a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?
Wont it just work at normal resolution for 95% of the software it runs anyway?
And won't the software that is compliant just be half the size?
If it's upscaled then doesn't that defeat the object?
I'm a HUGE Apple fan, love their products, but really couldn't care 2 hoots about retina displays on iMacs, laptops or anything else.
If I'm wrong (and I may be), please tell me what I've missed.
Thanks

as a machine its better than the classic.

in terms of screen, if you work with graphics, photography, you'll appreciate what the screen has to offer. If you don't need the screen, then the screen is "hype" but even still the internals of the retina are better.

 

[Mojo1]

Yes, There Is A Lot Of Hype...

But that is typical on the Macrumors forum. Ignore all the posts trumpeting the retina display and Be Happy.

I use an early 13" MBP. Size is important to me because I travel light. I sold my 15" MBP because it was too large to pack in a carry-on bag with enough clothes and incidentals for a trip lasting a week or longer.

The 13" MBPs resolution is just fine for me but I am not comparing it side-by-side with a retina display. I don't want to do a lot of detail work on any portable display; I save it for my high resolution external display.

I am also leery of spending $2000 on a portable Mac that can be easily damaged or stolen. I can get a base model MBP for $1000 or less. If it is damaged or stolen I can easily absorb the loss. $2000 exceeds my financial comfort zone.

 

[unobtainium]

Move two to three feet from those screens and the difference becomes imperceptible.

I sit about two feet from my monitors. With that in mind I went to the Apple store a couple months ago to see for myself. I'll be ready for a new MBP in the next couple of months so I am trying to make up my mind. So taking the distance that I sit at from the screen into account I could not tell the difference.

It probably has a lot to do with eyesight. I can easily tell the difference between the two at three feet away. There's a huge difference.

 

[Candlelight]

Its cheaper than the regular MBP.

From Apple US store:
15" regular MBP (8GB RAM/256GB SSD) - $2,399.00
15" retina MBP (8GB RAM/256GB SSD) - $2,199.00

From the New Zealand store:

15-inch: 2.3 GHz - NZ$ 2,899.00
15-inch: 2.3 GHz Retina display - NZ$ 3,499.00

Your argument includes upgrading the MacBook Pro to the same specs as the Retina; I was meaning straight out of the box prices.

Why would anyone go through Apple to upgrade the ram and hard drive? It's a heck of a lot cheaper to go elsewhere. I've got 1500GB of storage on my MacBook Pro 15" and I spent barely half of what it would cost to install an SSD from Apple.

 

[MT0227]

But that is typical on the Macrumors forum. Ignore all the posts trumpeting the retina display and Be Happy.

Let's be clear...there's a significant difference between the Retina and Non-Retina displays for those that have reasonable vision to see it. This is not hype, it's fact. I've been working with a 17" Hi-Res MBP for several years and the rMBP is still a very noticeable improvement to me.

So...don't ignore anything, take in all the hype, and go to your nearest Apple retail store to decide for yourself after seeing it in person. Only you can decide if what you see is worth the cost or if it's just hype.