Are Retina Displays Worth It?

[TechGod]

I have a normal MBP and my cousin who lives with me has the Retina. Yeah that beautiful display is totally worth it, no joke its amazing.

----------

If someone considers your post to be tl;dr then they may want to consider being tested for ADD.

I have ADD, I didn't think it was too long at all.

----------

I have ADD so I guess that's why I put that note

I have ADD, it's fine. I don't think other ADD people would stop reading it, it was short and to the point

 

[Quackers]

Yes they are and no they're not. It depends on what you use them for, I suppose.

 

[cool11]

I just got my new retina mbp.
I want to use maximum screen resolution.
As I can see in system preferences-display, only the option 'Best'-retina, has the 'retina' name besides it.
Does this means that the other ones, are not 'retina' resolutions?
Am I losing something?

 

[Quu]

If I could get a Retina MacBook Pro with a 1920x1200 display that was as good in quality as the 17" MacBook Pro I currently have (No yellow staining, no shadows, no purple hues etc) then I would prefer that over the 2880x1800 retina display.

In my opinion the technology is not yet reliable enough to make the Retina MacBook Pro in the volumes Apple needs so I'd prefer them to go back to using what works. And before you reply to me saying "I've got a perfect display!" I know that there are good ones out there but I personally bought five of the late 2013 Haswell model and I was unable to get one that didn't have yellow on the screen (Proof of my purchase/replacements: http://i.imgur.com/bbqYjbY.png )

 

[cool11]

1920x1200 is the best resolution I can have in mbp 15' ?
I thought retina could give me higher resolution.
Instead of this, if I choose 'retina', it seems that I am working in 800x600 pixels resolution! Unacceptable for me.
I want as much space as I can get, in every monitor I use.

 

[Wuiffi]

Instead of this, if I choose 'retina', it seems that I am working in 800x600 pixels resolution! Unacceptable for me.
I want as much space as I can get, in every monitor I use.

get SwitchResX. With it you can set native resolution if you want (and if your eyes are incredibly good)

 

[Naimfan]

If I could get a Retina MacBook Pro with a 1920x1200 display that was as good in quality as the 17" MacBook Pro I currently have (No yellow staining, no shadows, no purple hues etc) then I would prefer that over the 2880x1800 retina display.

I agree. I have a Early 2011 17" HR-AG and a Mid-2012 2.7/16/768 15" rMBP. The screen on the 17" is just better, albeit not as pretty to look at. (Both calibrated.)

So is retina "worth" it? Well, you can't buy a 2013 MBP model without it . . . (Spare me the Mid-2012 13" cMBP.)

Hopefully Apple will soon be able to produce retina panels without the problems Quu (among many others) have noted, because the retinas really can be gorgeous.

 

[Cassady]

Are Retina Displays Worth It?

I know I might be going against the grain here - and let me downgrade my own opinion straight-up by stating I've never owned a rMBP - but I'm still trying to figure out if it would make a massive difference for me. I have my doubts.

Whereas the difference between SD and HD on a 46" tv is day-and-night difference, I cannot say the same for smaller screens.

I was expecting to be blown away by the jump from an iPad 2, to my new Air - and, quite frankly - wasn't.

Maybe my eyes are just too old


And every time I walk into an iStore - I inevitably end up jumping between the r&nMBP demo models, trying to "see" the difference - coz dang, millions must be seeing something I'm not - but I always come away feeling... 'meh.

Again. Not stirring. Guess it's just each to their own. This is simply *my experience of it, fwiw.

 

[Davidkoh]

I know I might be going against the grain here - and let me downgrade my own opinion straight-up by stating I've never owned a rMBP - but I'm still trying to figure out if it would make a massive difference for me. I have my doubts.

Whereas the difference between SD and HD on a 46" tv is day-and-night difference, I cannot say the same for smaller screens.

I was expecting to be blown away by the jump from an iPad 2, to my new Air - and, quite frankly - wasn't.

Maybe my eyes are just too old


And every time I walk into an iStore - I inevitably end up jumping between the r&nMBP demo models, trying to "see" the difference - coz dang, millions must be seeing something I'm not - but I always come away feeling... 'meh.

Again. Not stirring. Guess it's just each to their own. This is simply *my experience of it, fwiw.

I kind of think it is awesome to get 125% more real estate on the 13" (1920x1200 compared to 1280x800)...

 

[cool11]

I can't understand the 'native' resolution Apple claims, for retina models.

I copy from http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs-retina/

Native resolution: 2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1920 by 1200, 1680 by 1050, 1280 by 800, and 1024 by 640 pixels

How can I believe that 'native' resolution is 2880x1800? When I see a view of (lets' say) 800x600?
Ok, wonderful screen in any case.
But where is the resolution lost?
The best I can get till now is 1920x1200. I will not use extra software to achieve better results.
The only logical solution I can think, is about 'pixels per inch'.
Is this the answer?

What is the ppi in 1920x1200?

I hope to find an answer in all these matters.

 

[TechZeke]

I can't understand the 'native' resolution Apple claims, for retina models.

I copy from http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs-retina/

Native resolution: 2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1920 by 1200, 1680 by 1050, 1280 by 800, and 1024 by 640 pixels

How can I believe that 'native' resolution is 2880x1800? When I see a view of (lets' say) 800x600?
Ok, wonderful screen in any case.
But where is the resolution lost?
The best I can get till now is 1920x1200. I will not use extra software to achieve better results.
The only logical solution I can think, is about 'pixels per inch'.
Is this the answer?

What is the ppi in 1920x1200?

I hope to find an answer in all these matters.

The screen physically has 2880x1800 pixels, but the UI is scaled so everything is the size of a normal non retina display. If you were to run 2880x1800 natively it would look super tiny on a 15" screen.

The best for retina setting is scaled to 1440x900, which is exactly half the resolution of 2880x1800. So the screen now has 4 pixels for every 1 pixel that would be in a normal non-retina 1440x900 display.

Therefore, everything is normal sized and readable, but the high resolution makes everything crisper.

 

[L T]

My MacBook air is my only non-retina device and I regret not getting the MacBook Pro! The Air's display is ok, but that retina is just insane!

 

[skaertus]

The retina display is impressive and worth the price premium. After having a retina MacBook Pro, I simply cannot use a non-retina device again.

 

[Trek2100]

The short answer is an emphatic YES. I have great vision and to me the difference is like looking at an analog tube TV vs. LCD HD TV. That may be stretching it a bit but my 17" MBP almost looks blurred when compared to my new rMBP.

 

[Barney63]

Over the past few days I have had to use my wifes Acer laptop.
The display looks terrible on it now.
Retina is the way to go :thumbsup:

Barney

 

[dmccloud]

I can't understand the 'native' resolution Apple claims, for retina models.

I copy from http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs-retina/

Native resolution: 2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1920 by 1200, 1680 by 1050, 1280 by 800, and 1024 by 640 pixels

How can I believe that 'native' resolution is 2880x1800? When I see a view of (lets' say) 800x600?
Ok, wonderful screen in any case.
But where is the resolution lost?
The best I can get till now is 1920x1200. I will not use extra software to achieve better results.
The only logical solution I can think, is about 'pixels per inch'.
Is this the answer?

What is the ppi in 1920x1200?

I hope to find an answer in all these matters.

By default, the UI on a retina model is scaled to 1440 x 900 - exactly half the native resolution. It's a bit of a trick, because what is actually going on is that Apple is doubling the pixels to achieve that scale. I'm adding two screenshots - one is of this thread in Firefox at the "best" (scaled) resolution, the other is at the full 2880 x 1800 resolution. You'll see how much smaller the UI is at native compared to "best" settings...

 

[tillsbury]

1920x1200 is the best resolution I can have in mbp 15' ?
I thought retina could give me higher resolution.
Instead of this, if I choose 'retina', it seems that I am working in 800x600 pixels resolution! Unacceptable for me.
I want as much space as I can get, in every monitor I use.

Yes, you can run OSX at the native resolution, 2880x1800. It's excellent doing this, particularly with programs you're familiar with (so you're not looking for buttons all the time). You will, however, need a third party program to enable it, at least at the moment (or perhaps not, when 10.9.3 comes out...)

----------

...but to answer OP's question, non-Retina displays are now firmly in the old-school vintage computing section along with rotating hard disks and 8" floppies. Don't even consider a computer without one.

 

[cool11]

It is a matter of personal preference.
I prefer the maximum resolution, instead of having just good fidelity.
So, I set resolution to max, 1920x1200, it is better than 1440x900 that my older 2011 mbp had.

 

[kathyricks]

Although a photograph or video on a retina MBP or iPad is more pleasant to look at due to the extremely high pixel density and richer looking colors, the sharpness of the images are actually softer than on a conventional display. So photos that look razor sharp on an conventional display look a little bit out of focus on a retina.

So the retina displays are still not the best possible displays available - in the future we will likely see high density displays that offer more sharpness than today's retinas from Apple.

 

[michaelsviews]

My MacBook air is my only non-retina device and I regret not getting the MacBook Pro! The Air's display is ok, but that retina is just insane!

In the same boat right now with a MBA, which the display is the same as my 2008 MBP which died. I love the Air because of the battery life 12 hours and design.

I mite trade up but have to put this MBA next to the 15" and see for myself, yes the retina is awesome, but I do not go out and buy a new mac every year and I do not do movies, photography.

Time will tell

 

[UBS28]

It's worth it. Besides the sharpness, the retina display uses IPS. The colours are amazing.

 

[crazyxzer0]

I use 1680x1050 daily as it is the best compromise between full 2x scaling and screen estate. When I remote in to my work computer, I set it to 1920x1200 so I can use all my apps at work without having to resize crap when I use my PC at work.

It works perfectly for me.

 

[jdong217]

I'd honestly say it depends. I had the regular MBP for about 5 years and the resolution definitely isn't bad, but having the 13" retina is a huge difference. I do a lot of photo-editing, so it's a nice touch.

Maybe I'm in the minority or am too frugal, but I think if money is tight, JUST the retina display isn't worth it (though nice). But all of the new features of the retina MBPs over the old MBPs is definitely worth it.

 

[Tsuchiya]

Definitely. This screen is incredible, everything looks so vibrant. Watching some 1080p and 4K footage...mesmerising.

(oddly though for text and reading, there is a difference but it's less of a big deal then I would've thought)

Coming from an old 15" with the 1440x900 screen and a Dell U2711 which runs at 2560x1440.

 

[MCAsan]

Just how much longer do you think you will get a non-Retina laptop from Apple? The handwriting is on the wall about portable devices being all solid state and with Retina displays. Retina MBAs will like be the next step....along with the formal end of non-Retina MacBooks.

It should be an interesting set of announcements at WWDC on June 2nd.