Retina Hardly Noticeable

[Bobby Corwen]

It is true. Especially upon first encounter, the rMBP seems underwhelming. You glance over at the dock and the icons don't seem to be any more "magical" than the uMBP.

I think this phenomenon is a product of what we saw from the iPhone 3GS --> iPhone 4 transition. It was like night and day. It was slightly less dramatic on the iPad 2 --> iPad 3 transition. And now on the MBP which was already a pretty high and beautiful resolution, there is hardly no difference at all.

It was already pretty darn good on the MBP screen. Its hard to improve on that.

Where as the iPhone literally got four times better.

So maybe we expected something that drastic.

But it seems to me like it boils down to text being better for all intents and purposes. And guess what, I usually consume text on a retina iPad.

There are so many demerits for the rMBP and even its "advantage" is so barely significant.

BRB loading a 20 second 4K video takes 20 minutes.

 

[SteveCarriere]

I agree. While there is a difference, I don't see it justifying the cost or loss of storage, ram, etc.

 

[Liquinn]

I agree. While there is a difference, I don't see it justifying the cost or loss of storage, ram, etc.

I agree.

I'll probably sell my 15" cMBP soon and buy a Haswell rMBP though.

 

[Handsome Bacon]

Another with selective memory loss:
This due to people not fully understanding what is on offer with the Retina MBP as a whole; The Retina is faster, has far more efficient cooling, better audio, better connectivity, quieter, lighter, thiner, and likely to be more reliable. Then we have the IPS display on top of this, that brings superior colour reproduction, contrast, viewing angles, reduced reflection, user defined scaling need more workspace you can have it, and of course resolution.

irrespective if you own a Retina or don't, these facts don't change; a Retina is highly likely to outperform it`s similarly specified standard counterpart as it`s thermal management is just so much better, where the standard system will bog down and choke due to throttling the Retina does not from my own experience my own Retina will run indefinitely at full load, at maximum CPU/GPU frequency.

These posts are simply tiring, loaded with negative comment by those that either only have about ten minutes experience of a Retina at Best Buy, don't have the $$$ and are just pissed off, have no clue about the engineering involved, bought a Mac at the wrong time and unhappy with their decision. Anyone actually using a Retina in direct comparison to a comparable standard model will know the difference.

For some the Retina wont work, and in general this is tied to software, equally this does not make the Retina the lesser machine. Once software catches up no doubt many more will make the switch. FWIW i have three 15" MBP`s two are quad cores with comparable processors, the Retina simply outperform`s the the standard system; same media, same environment, by a significant margin, the difference; sustained performance not a 60 second benchmark...

LOL ^^^ yeah OK.

 

[Handsome Bacon]

I agree. While there is a difference, I don't see it justifying the cost or loss of storage, ram, etc.

Don't understand how any serious graphics artist would want to use a 15" screen unless they're stuck on an airplane, airport or a Starbucks. Lots of us have our computers connected to a separate display a lot of the time, so the display on the laptop isn't the most important thing, and there currently isn't a display on the market that will take advantage of the retina's resolution. Never noticed any "thermal problems" and I use Premiere all day long editing. Fully loaded for what I need, the retina model comes in at about $4,000 with sales tax - nearly double what I put into mine. As for portability....a couple tenths of an inch and a pound? Go to the gym people if an extra 1lb is killing you.

If you want a fast machine, build a fast desktop...they will always outperform laptops in every measure, including cooling, graphics ability, expandability and speed - the best of both worlds.

That said, next iteration of the retina would be worth a look. I'm just not buying the argument, at least right now. So many problem threads on MacRumors about these things - kinda hard to ignore.

 

[Queen6]

To be fair, many of the "positive" posts could be described in much the same manner. For my part, I just don't like the thought of someone buying something based on false information.

Agreed, same i just like people to be informed, and find many post`s tend to trivialise focusing on a single negative issue. The Retina is not perfect and some have without doubt incurred issues; image retention, SMC bug, now latest models look to have another potential SMC issue related to a change in SSD vendor. My own 2.3 mid 2012 base model performs flawlessly and i rather suspect the vast majority of other Retina`s perform the same.

Forum`s aways have, and always will continue to draw those with issue, which can give a skewed view of any product, misinformation simply amplifies this situation. I don't personally care for Apple`s hype, don't care for IOS and it`s mobile device. What i do like is rocksteady performance in a portable platform offering near Workstation performance, here the 15" Retina delivers.

 

[flipnap]

"You glance over at the dock and the icons don't seem to be any more "magical" than the uMBP"

i agree. one looks like a block of pixels and the other looks like a vector image. nothing magical. but one hell of a difference. i notice it EVERY single time i use my retina. i NEVER get used to how clean the screen is, im blown away every single time i boot in. in the same way i could never get past how pixelated my classic looked.

 

[xShane]

Retina also has USB3 and HDMI.

This is really a no-brainer, at similar configs the cMBP and the rMBP are the same price

The cMBPs have USB 3.0 and HDMI support also...

Haha, some people only hate what they want so bad and can't afford. Yet you waste time talking crap to us mac enthusiasts!

No one here is "hating" the Retina.

----------



Definitely get more bang for ur buck with the retna.

False. It's more expensive with less upgrade-ability.

I agree. While there is a difference, I don't see it justifying the cost or loss of storage, ram, etc.

Exactly.

 

[KPOM]

I have perfect vision.

This is a 100% serious thread. I was expecting to see an amazing display, and yet, it only appeared to be slightly clearer and more fine.

It isn't quite the same "wow" factor as with the Retina iPad or the first Retina iPhone, but I definitely notice it, particularly after going back to a non-Retina Mac or Windows PC. It's most noticeable with text, particularly when zooming in.

On non-optimized websites text can look blurrier, though, based on the way it renders pixels. Fortunately sites are adapting to this.

 

[gngan]

Agreed. But I see *so* many posts telling people to buy Retina MacBook Pros because "the Retina screen is sooooooo good". They talk like that's the main deciding factor. I see it as a minor benefit.

Couldn't agree more.

"You glance over at the dock and the icons don't seem to be any more "magical" than the uMBP"

i agree. one looks like a block of pixels and the other looks like a vector image. nothing magical. but one hell of a difference. i notice it EVERY single time i use my retina. i NEVER get used to how clean the screen is, im blown away every single time i boot in. in the same way i could never get past how pixelated my classic looked.

Image

Of cause there's a difference when you zoom it to THIS big. How many icons can you fit if you zoom it to this size? OP said there's a difference but not as big as people here says.

 

[KPOM]

The cMBPs have USB 3.0 and HDMI support also...

False. It's more expensive with less upgrade-ability.

Exactly.

The cMBPs do not have HDMI support, except through an adapter. What's nice about the rMBP is that the HDMI port frees up the Thunderbolt ports for other uses.

As for the relative price:

13" 2.5GHz cMBP with 8GB RAM, 128GB SSD: $1499
13" 2.5GHz rMBP with 8GB RAM, 128GB SSD: $1499

Sure the 13" has the optical drive and built-in Ethernet/Firewire (which would cost $137 to add all three to the rMBP), but the rMBP has a screen that can display in 1650x1080 or 1440x900, which the cMBP can't do at any price. It also has the HDMI port, which would run $29 and on the cMBP.

At the higher configurations the rMBP also has the slightly enhanced CPUs.

It's the same story with the 15" line.

----------

Couldn't agree more.

Of cause there's a difference when you zoom it to THIS big. How many icons can you fit if you zoom it to this size? OP said there's a difference but not as big as people here says.

The benefit is increasing as more sites and programs are optimized for it. Photo editing in particular is nice. Also, having the optional 1440x900 and 1650x1080 modes is pretty useful to me. Given that the price difference is virtually nonexistent now, it seems worth it to me.

 

[Orlandoech]

In my opinion this thread is completely useless

 

[flipnap]

Of cause there's a difference when you zoom it to THIS big. How many icons can you fit if you zoom it to this size? OP said there's a difference but not as big as people here says.

thats not the point, like at all. i simply attached that photo to show that there IS A DIFFERENCE and its noticeable at regular size. i cant believe i even have to have this argument. not only for resolution but color fidelity. with that many more pixels you have a much more dense color representation. if that icon picture on the left was a pure 255 red block, how much of that "grid" (the area between the pixels) do you think colors the tone? now for the icon on the right, you have a LOT less area between the pixels, meaning more room for the true color.

you and MANY people wrongly use the argument "of course magnified like that you can see the difference, but at regular viewing its not like that" when the truth of the matter is that it IS like that, and even more so. This is a simple matter, and i dont understand how people are even arguing that the retina isnt a HUGE improvement over the classic, or any other laptop screen for that matter. its like denying the sky is blue

look, theres nothing wrong with saying something like "is there really a need for something that dense or clean" but to deny it isnt a massive improvement or try to convince retina owners that theyre imagining things is comical. I bought a thunderbolt display and it took me over a week to readjust to how pixelated it looks.

----------

In my opinion this thread is completely useless

most of the threads like this are.. it keeps us entertained though

Originally Posted by xShane
Agreed. But I see *so* many posts telling people to buy Retina MacBook Pros because "the Retina screen is sooooooo good". They talk like that's the main deciding factor. I see it as a minor benefit.

and I suppose you think the difference between a 720p and 1080 p television is just a "minor benefit"? You know, some of us buy a laptop because we HAVE to stare at these screens for hours on end and its a MAJOR FACTOR. If you didnt care about the panel so much then just buy a Mac mini and hook up to a monitor?

 

[jamezr]

In my opinion this thread is completely useless

couldn't agree more......its really simple.....
1) You don't like the rMBP

very simple solution......don't buy one.....


2) Don't put it down just because its not right for you......

 

[Sean76]

couldn't agree more......its really simple.....
1) You don't like the rMBP

very simple solution......don't buy one.....


2) Don't put it down just because its not right for you......

The voice of reason... Some people just feel the need to bash things they either

A- Aren't interested in

B- Cant Afford

C- Aren't interested in because they can't afford, so feel the need to bash

Of course there are people out there that just don't really care about the screen they're lap tops have, and those are the people that mostly don't have such a strong opinion as the ones who fall into the categories of letter C above.

Oh well, complainers will complain...

 

[Ledgem]

you and MANY people wrongly use the argument "of course magnified like that you can see the difference, but at regular viewing its not like that" when the truth of the matter is that it IS like that, and even more so.

Have you ever looked at a billboard advertisement with photos up close? How about one of those advertisements that cover the entire side of a building? It looks fine from the road but it's pretty horrid up close, isn't it? There's a similar principle here. There is a certain distance at which your eyes would not be able to appreciate more detail even if the pixel density were further increased. This also partly explains why the pixel density of the retina screen on the MBP is lower than the iPad, but in turn is lower than the iPhone. It's not just the ease of manufacturing: Apple has calculated that, based on the average viewing distances with each device, the "pixels per degree" is about the same for all devices. In fact, it's higher with the MBP's, which Apple figures are used at roughly double the distance as the iPhone. And that's despite the fact that the 15" MBP has 220 pixels per inch compared with the iPhone's 326 pixels per inch!

You can prove this to yourself. Do you have an iPad 3 or newer, or an iPhone 4 or newer? Place the device near your retina MBP with the screen on, and sit at your normal viewing distance from the computer. Can you see any difference between the devices? I could not when I did this with my iPad 3 and my cMBP. Now move your face closer, similar to the distance that you would use your iPad or iPhone at. Some differences might become apparent at this point... but you don't normally use your computer that close, do you?

More simply, it's not a matter of being wrong or right. If you're very close to your screen then the retina will indeed feel like a huge improvement. If you sit farther away from your computer then the benefits of the retina display will not be as apparent. Depending on your eye sight and viewing distance, they may not be apparent at all.

 

[0dev]

IMPORTANT NOTE (PLEASE READ FIRST): This thread was merely my opinion/take on the Retina screen. In no way was it intended as trolling. Please do not post disrespectful/insulting posts/comments/remarks/replies. It is *only* a discussion of the Retina screen and opinions/views.

If you are easily offended or hurt by this, do NOT post.

I was at my local BestBuy picking up a HDMI cord. I figured while I was there I would test out a MacBook Pro with Retina display. They had non-Retina MBPs right next to them.

I started using the rMBP, and there was hardly any difference at all between it and the non-Retina MBP.

Am I missing something? I definitely could not see nor justify buying a rMBP instead of a MBP just because of the Retina.

It means you don't buy into marketing hype and the famous Apple reality distortion field. Well done.

Besides, Apple's Retina displays have already been beaten by competing smartphones and I'm sure they'll be beaten by competing laptop makers soon enough too.

 

[xShane]

The cMBPs do not have HDMI support, except through an adapter. What's nice about the rMBP is that the HDMI port frees up the Thunderbolt ports for other uses.

As for the relative price:

13" 2.5GHz cMBP with 8GB RAM, 128GB SSD: $1499
13" 2.5GHz rMBP with 8GB RAM, 128GB SSD: $1499

Sure the 13" has the optical drive and built-in Ethernet/Firewire (which would cost $137 to add all three to the rMBP), but the rMBP has a screen that can display in 1650x1080 or 1440x900, which the cMBP can't do at any price. It also has the HDMI port, which would run $29 and on the cMBP.

At the higher configurations the rMBP also has the slightly enhanced CPUs.

It's the same story with the 15" line.

----------



The benefit is increasing as more sites and programs are optimized for it. Photo editing in particular is nice. Also, having the optional 1440x900 and 1650x1080 modes is pretty useful to me. Given that the price difference is virtually nonexistent now, it seems worth it to me.

And then try making the rMBP 16GB RAM. That's another $300-$400 right there. Oh, you want to upgrade the SSD? Now you have to pay for a more expensive SSD from a single manufacturer.

The cMBP can be upgraded to 16GB RAM for $80 and you can shop from many different brands of SSDs. You can even have two hard drives (one SSD and 1TB+ HDD, for example).

However, I do agree that one of the best justifications for buying a rMBP is if you're a photo editor.

 

[Orlandoech]

couldn't agree more......its really simple.....
1) You don't like the rMBP

very simple solution......don't buy one.....


2) Don't put it down just because its not right for you......

Amen my fellow macrumors ebuddy.

 

[Bobby Corwen]

"You glance over at the dock and the icons don't seem to be any more "magical" than the uMBP"

i agree. one looks like a block of pixels and the other looks like a vector image. nothing magical. but one hell of a difference. i notice it EVERY single time i use my retina. i NEVER get used to how clean the screen is, im blown away every single time i boot in. in the same way i could never get past how pixelated my classic looked.

Image

I dont know who concocted that comparison and what was on their hidden agenda, but that is not an accurate rendering of what it looks like. What resolution is that even at?

Im looking at mine now and it looks as smooth as the second one.

This is on a 15 inch 2012 uMBP.

 

[KPOM]

And then try making the rMBP 16GB RAM. That's another $300-$400 right there. Oh, you want to upgrade the SSD? Now you have to pay for a more expensive SSD from a single manufacturer.

The cMBP can be upgraded to 16GB RAM for $80 and you can shop from many different brands of SSDs. You can even have two hard drives (one SSD and 1TB+ HDD, for example).

However, I do agree that one of the best justifications for buying a rMBP is if you're a photo editor.

With USB 3.0, external SSDs are a snap. I have a 64GB flash drive that gets nearly 200MB/s read speeds and 120MB/s write speeds. It cost me about $60. I also have a USB 3.0 enclosure that I bought for $20 that I use with an OCZ Vertex SSD.

As for RAM, the 16GB upgrade on the 15" rMBP is $200, IIRC.

----------

It means you don't buy into marketing hype and the famous Apple reality distortion field. Well done.

Besides, Apple's Retina displays have already been beaten by competing smartphones and I'm sure they'll be beaten by competing laptop makers soon enough too.

Well, it's been 7 months now, and the only other notebook with a higher resolution screen is the Google Chromebook Pixel, and just barely. The Surface Pro is close in terms of PPI, but it's also a lot smaller.

 

[Orlandoech]

Noticing a ton of other post bashing the rMBP I would say the OP has an agenda to spread his "opinion" on how horrible a product the rMBP is.

He is entertaining none the less.

 

[flipnap]

Have you ever looked at a billboard advertisement with photos up close? How about one of those advertisements that cover the entire side of a building? It looks fine from the road but it's pretty horrid up close, isn't it? There's a similar principle here.

i sit arms length from my laptop. like every single person. and its close enough to see the difference. i dont sit thousands of yards away like a billboard.

It means you don't buy into marketing hype and the famous Apple reality distortion field. Well done.

Besides, Apple's Retina displays have already been beaten by competing smartphones and I'm sure they'll be beaten by competing laptop makers soon enough too.

you just horribly contradicted yourself. if the retina is just a "reality distortion field" then how can another manufacturer beat them at something that doesnt exist? and apples laptop display has been beaten by a 4 inch android screen? .. Im sorry dude, and i really dont mean to offend you, but ive seen commenters like you every time apple comes up with something new, then in another year or so youre praising the competitor for the same reasons.. kind of like how you just did. according to you, apple is using a "reality distortion field" implying the retina is nothing special, then follow with "I'm sure they'll be beaten by competing laptop makers soon enough too".. how can they be beaten if they aren't "beating"? man.

You know for YEARS my biggest point of contention with laptops has been the panels. I bought a samsung chronos and the panel was pathetic. it looked like something belonging to a 300 dollar netbook, washed out and dull. Apple releases the retina, people like you laugh or say its nothing special, then in two years we see every panel like a retina and you say "it was natural progression".. yeah right. if apple didnt release the retina wed be stuck with 1080 screens for the next 4 years.

i have no idea how i got suckered into this troll bait. i guess i must be caught in a reality distortion field. have fun.

 

[xShane]

Noticing a ton of other post bashing the rMBP I would say the OP has an agenda to spread his "opinion" on how horrible a product the rMBP is.

He is entertaining none the less.

Read the original/main post.

 

[vatter69]

And then try making the rMBP 16GB RAM. That's another $300-$400 right there. Oh, you want to upgrade the SSD? Now you have to pay for a more expensive SSD from a single manufacturer.

The cMBP can be upgraded to 16GB RAM for $80 and you can shop from many different brands of SSDs. You can even have two hard drives (one SSD and 1TB+ HDD, for example).

And now we are comparing Apples to Oranges - pun intended.

Just FYI - your average Acer Laptop is much much cheaper than an Apple laptop, too. Come get one quick! And all those nasty 3rd party upgrades! Mmmmmmmh!

Besides - 200$ is the price for 16 Gig, not saying that it's cheap but since when has apple been cheap when it comes to upgrades?