Retina MacBook Pro Pushes the Limits of its Graphics Capabilities

[freudling]

Well thats not the impression i got, plenty did acknowledge there is a lag when browsing but the general impression i got was that the majority who actually own the RMBP are really enjoying their machine, check the thread 'rmbp buyers remorse' in the MBP forum, there is only 1 or 2 threads and concerns out of 4 pages.

I'll trial mine for 7 days when it arrives giving me plenty of time to return if i'm not happy, i wont be cancelling my order based on some assumptions from people who don't even own it..

Why don't you go troll somewhere off the planet.

You don't own the machine, surprise. I do. And we have 2 others. Anyone at this point who denies the rMBP has performance issues is incredulous. And the fact that people like you who don't own the machine keep clinging to this "one problem" thing. It's not just scrolling in a Web browser, do you get it?

It's everything. Window redraws. Swiping into Dashboard. Maximizing Windows. Calling up the Dock. Window pop up. Transitions within programs. All UI events are slow. And we have the FPS to show it.

I've got a video showing the performance on multiple tasks. I'll post it.

----------

Two questions about this lag issue, for anyone that knows:

1. Is there a difference between the 2.3 Ghz and 2.6 Ghz units?
2. Is the same lag issue present when using the machine with the thunderbolt display?

Dude let's dispel this myth right now. The short answer is basically no, there is no difference, and there never will be a difference. You've got 4 cores to work with on each with Turbo Boost and this clock speed increase is slight. The issue here is... UI events. This is mainly a graphics problem. You can continue to clock up your processor but the complex relationship between the software and how it's supposed to offload onto the GPU... it's simply trying to drive too many pixels now and the GPU can't handle it. But it's supposed to. That's what hardware acceleration in OS X is all about.

The problem is the screen. It's too high a resolution. Some software improvements in ML and to the GPU driver will help, this I know for sure. But how much it'll end up helping I have no clue. I'm not holding my breath because there's such a huge divide between this machine's UI performance and older MacBook Pros it's sick. My 2011 MacBook Pro 15" with 256 MB VRAM runs circles around this, and it has a 5400 RPM hard drive, a less powerful CPU, and slower RAM. With all the benefits of a super fast Flash hard drive, a stronger CPU, etc. the performance gains are only noticeable on things like starting the computer up.

 

[iBug2]

The problem is the screen. It's too high a resolution. Some software improvements in ML and to the GPU driver will help, this I know for sure. But how much it'll end up helping I have no clue. I'm not holding my breath because there's such a huge divide between this machine's UI performance and older MacBook Pros it's sick. My 2011 MacBook Pro 15" with 256 MB VRAM runs circles around this, and it has a 5400 RPM hard drive, a less powerful CPU, and slower RAM. With all the benefits of a super fast Flash hard drive, a stronger CPU, etc. the performance gains are only noticeable on things like starting the computer up.

The thing is though, if you are switching from an iMac or a Mac Pro, you won't notice any performance issues because Mac Pro's using 30" or 27" screens or 27" iMacs already drive a similar amount of pixels using much faster GPU's, and give similar performance to the new retina Macbook when browsing facebook. (I don't know about the other UI issues though).

So if I'm getting a similar facebook scrolling performance using a HD5870 GPU at 2560*1600, that means that even in 3 years, when 5870 level GPU's become mobile, even then, you won't get such a fluid scrolling on facebook on your 3rd gen Retina, unless something is done on the software side.

So it's about waiting to see how Apple changes the OS in future revisions to give us better offloading to GPU.

Also don't forget that most of these UI lag issues happen only at the secondary resolutions, and I bet most people will use their machines at the standard retina resolution.

 

[ninadpchaudhari]

How to get that meter for testing my Mac ...
also, Is there any special app as seen in the pic

 

[Rocketman]

I presume with iOS devices Facebook or Apple is doing some server side processing to reduce the bandwidth sent to devices. Why not do that to the top 10 identifiable end user PC and other devices as well.

If I am wrong that they are, they should.

Anandtech:
"The GPU has an easy time with its part of the process but the CPU’s workload is borderline too much for a single core to handle. Throw a more complex website at it and things get bad quickly. Facebook combines a lot of compressed images with text - every single image is decompressed on the CPU before being handed off to the GPU. Combine that with other elements that are processed on the CPU and you get a recipe for choppy scrolling."

I also think webkit and maybe Safari should be modified to allow the dual and quad core systems we have now and in the future to distribute the load. Between these two schemes, graphics responsiveness should improve, compatibility with older and crippled devices improved, and bigger and better things in the future made practical on a non-desktop unit.

Rocketman

 

[wankey]

Your thoughtful response replete with examples is very helpful. As is your polite tone. Douche.

I suppose the difference is in what one means by "mid-range." If you mean "there are better cards" then sure, the 650M in the rMBP is mid range. But that is not what sensible people mean by "mid-range." The phrase implies being in the "middle" - i.e. a similar amount of performance gained and lost above and below the card in question. There are only a few mobile cards that out perform the 650M with even remotely comparable power consumption profiles, and with the possible exception of the 680M (is that actually on the market yet? can it be jammed in a 1 inch case without melting?) they do so by maybe 20% (and I believe I read that the rMBP version is overclocked vs the stock card?). Not nothing, but hardly a vast improvement. Whereas the 650M substantially outperforms what would have been a top of the line mobile GPU just 18 months ago, substantially outperforms integrated graphics. To really get a big jump over the 650M, you are talking using desktop cards, or crossfire/sli with corresponding size, weight, and power consumption - i.e. 8 pound laptops that sound like hair dryers (oops, did I say 8 pounds? Try 12).

----------



It's in i7 and a 650M - it will drive a 1920x1200 just fine.

Just to clarify, the 650m isn't anywhere near close to midrange.

 

[AidenShaw]

Just to clarify, the 650m isn't anywhere near close to midrange.

Do you mean this in the sense of

"the 650M is way below mid-range"​

or

"the 650M is way above mid-range"​

?

 

[anthony13]

all i know is, i'm at the apple store right now posting from one, and using the intended retina setting, there is no noticeably bad frame rates that anyone is describing here. at all. And the screen looks great. And even content that isn't retina enabled hardly looks "horrid" or any of the other words people around here seem to be throwing around.

not canceling my order. apple got it right. also, i had 15 apps running in the back round while i was doing all this.

 

[Aodhan]

all i know is, i'm at the apple store right now posting from one, and using the intended retina setting, there is no noticeably bad frame rates that anyone is describing here. at all. And the screen looks great. And even content that isn't retina enabled hardly looks "horrid" or any of the other words people around here seem to be throwing around.

not canceling my order. apple got it right. also, i had 15 apps running in the back round while i was doing all this.

Well be sure to log out and make sure you didn't leave your username and password on the system key chain on that in-store computer.

 

[MEgaMacMan]

all i know is, i'm at the apple store right now posting from one, and using the intended retina setting, there is no noticeably bad frame rates that anyone is describing here. at all. And the screen looks great. And even content that isn't retina enabled hardly looks "horrid" or any of the other words people around here seem to be throwing around.

not canceling my order. apple got it right. also, i had 15 apps running in the back round while i was doing all this.

I think people are way over reacting. At the end it's the experience as a whole that counts not just a few issues that the new pro currently has. Yes, it's not perfect but I also had around an hour in store, not a lot but to me it seemed fine, I also like how everybody is using only parts of anandtech for their arguments, the most negative parts. I find this to be not a true reflection of their review which is after all mostly positive. Their final words on the subject state it's a great machine, so what's the problem. The problem is people reading about issues when they haven't even experienced it themselves first hand and just repeating all the bad things other people are saying.

I like how people buying the non retina model are chipping in with their biased views as well. ok I get it, your upset about losing the DVD drive and you think the screen is unnecessary. Ok I get it, you don't need to defend why you made that purchase instead of the retina in order to make yourself feel better because god forbid the retina turns out to be a much better and joyful machine to use, because then you would feel bad you made the wrong choice and we can't allow that to happen, so go ahead, pan the new model as much as you like while the rest of us enjoy it.

 

[Allegrotechie]

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


Just after the launch of the Retina MacBook Pro earlier this month, AnandTech provided a first glimpse of the machine's display performance, noting the various resolution options available to users and examining how its color and contrast compares to other notebooks.

After having more time to analyze the new machine, AnandTech last week published its full review of the Retina MacBook Pro, bringing its thorough and technically-detailed perspective to the report. While the whole review is definitely worth a read, the section on graphics performance bears special attention.

With the integrated Intel HD 4000 and discrete NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M graphics units responsible for driving 2880x1800 pixels in standard Retina mode and as many as 3840x2400 pixels before downscaling to display 1920x1200 at its highest non-Retina resolution, Apple is clearly pushing the limits of the machine's graphics capabilities.AnandTech goes on to assess this graphics performance, noting that the Retina MacBook Pro at times struggles to maintain a "consistently smooth experience".Focusing on browser scrolling behavior, which also involves substantial CPU load, AnandTech notes that the resource-intensive Facebook news feed pages can display at over 50 frames per second on a 2011 MacBook Pro, but that the new Retina MacBook Pro struggles to hit 20 frames per second as it pushes so many more pixels.

Image


Retina MacBook Pro at 21 frames per second while scrolling (See meter at top left)​

The report notes that OS X Mountain Lion will help address some of these issues by leveraging Core Animation, but in AnandTech's testing it was still only able to achieve 20-30 frames per second under Mountain Lion. Further improvements in performance will have to wait for hardware capabilities to catch up with demands imposed by these new ultra-high resolution displays.

Article Link: Retina MacBook Pro Pushes the Limits of its Graphics Capabilities

I'd have to disagree, my rMBP runs fine! I love using Boot Camp on it too, even though Win7 looks terrible on Retina. Anyone know how to fix this?

----------

I think people are way over reacting. At the end it's the experience as a whole that counts not just a few issues that the new pro currently has. Yes, it's not perfect but I also had around an hour in store, not a lot but to me it seemed fine, I also like how everybody is using only parts of anandtech for their arguments, the most negative parts. I find this to be not a true reflection of their review which is after all mostly positive. Their final words on the subject state it's a great machine, so what's the problem. The problem is people reading about issues when they haven't even experienced it themselves first hand and just repeating all the bad things other people are saying.

I like how people buying the non retina model are chipping in with their biased views as well. ok I get it, your upset about losing the DVD drive and you think the screen is unnecessary. Ok I get it, you don't need to defend why you made that purchase instead of the retina in order to make yourself feel better because god forbid the retina turns out to be a much better and joyful machine to use, because then you would feel bad you made the wrong choice and we can't allow that to happen, so go ahead, pan the new model as much as you like while the rest of us enjoy it.

Agreed 100%, mine runs fine

 

[freudling]

all i know is, i'm at the apple store right now posting from one, and using the intended retina setting, there is no noticeably bad frame rates that anyone is describing here. at all. And the screen looks great. And even content that isn't retina enabled hardly looks "horrid" or any of the other words people around here seem to be throwing around.

not canceling my order. apple got it right. also, i had 15 apps running in the back round while i was doing all this.

99% certain you are lying. 15 Apps? Yeah right. BS.

To all the disbelievers, this is an example of the performance of a rMBP 2.3 256 GB, ML DP4 machine with 8 GB RAM. The performance is a tad worse with screen capture on. However, it's bad all of the time.

Please stop posting the stupid FaceBook scroll example. The point of this video and what real people who really own this are saying is that the performance is crap for UI events. Swiping into Dashboard. Maximizing windows. Scrolling online, etc.

You'll see in this video, the stutter swiping into and out of Dashboard. Slow, choppiness closing Windows, sluggish Website scrolling, etc. So no, it's not a problem with your computer watching the video, it really is that brutal.

Without further delay, presenting to you, the Ret Ret Ret-ina MacBoo..... k book book Pro... Hit full screen to really see it:

http://s675.photobucket.com/albums/...urrent=Screengrab1920x1200rMBPMLDP4June30.mp4

 

[VFC]

All I know is I seen someone load Bf3 using bootcamp to run windows 7 and it looked great. He was able to play the game at full resolution 2880x1800 at high settings and achieve a respectable 30-40fps averaging at around 34fps. Now although 30 odd is not groundbreaking, at that resolution it's not bad at all. Of course switching the graphics to ultra dropped the fps really low between 15-20 fps which in a first person shooter is rubbish but hey, what do you expect at that high a res.

My point being, if it can run a fps like bf3 at over 30Fps at 2880x1800 then it proves it's a very capable machine....

Bf3 running at 1440x900 Ultra settings on my cMBP would look better than 2880x1800 on Med/High on a rMBP. It makes no sense to run a game at retina resolution while displaying med-high quality images in a game. In fact the higher resolution would only magnify the lower quality character/environment skins.

 

[MEgaMacMan]

Bf3 running at 1440x900 Ultra settings on my cMBP would look better than 2880x1800 on Med/High on a rMBP. It makes no sense to run a game at retina resolution while displaying med-high quality images in a game. In fact the higher resolution would only magnify the lower quality character/environment skins.

no problem drop the res to 1440 x 900 set it to ultra and boom you have high settings with good frame rates, then it will run better than your cMBP. problem solved. After all I would rather have the choice to be able to go up to 2880x1800 and drop the res to 1440 x 900 if I need than be stuck at 1440 x 900 at max resolution. After all not every game is as graphic intensive as BF3, so other games should play with pretty decent frame rates at 2880 x 900.

one other thing, there's nothing wrong with setting BF3 to high instead of ultra, plus it's the resolution that makes a game better which also effects how good the shaders look. when your setting something to ultra, all it's doing is improving the physics, shadows and so forth, reflections, that kind of thing, technically you could put all the settings on ultra and the lower res would make it pointless. so i think your wrong, if anything, the res at high settings, would look better than yours at ultra.

 

[IbisDoc]

[/COLOR]

Dude let's dispel this myth right now. The short answer is basically no, there is no difference, and there never will be a difference. You've got 4 cores to work with on each with Turbo Boost and this clock speed increase is slight. The issue here is... UI events. This is mainly a graphics problem. You can continue to clock up your processor but the complex relationship between the software and how it's supposed to offload onto the GPU... it's simply trying to drive too many pixels now and the GPU can't handle it. But it's supposed to. That's what hardware acceleration in OS X is all about.

The problem is the screen. It's too high a resolution. Some software improvements in ML and to the GPU driver will help, this I know for sure. But how much it'll end up helping I have no clue. I'm not holding my breath because there's such a huge divide between this machine's UI performance and older MacBook Pros it's sick. My 2011 MacBook Pro 15" with 256 MB VRAM runs circles around this, and it has a 5400 RPM hard drive, a less powerful CPU, and slower RAM. With all the benefits of a super fast Flash hard drive, a stronger CPU, etc. the performance gains are only noticeable on things like starting the computer up.

Thanks "dude". Any thoughts on question #2?

 

[wankey]

Do you mean this in the sense of

"the 650M is way below mid-range"​

or

"the 650M is way above mid-range"​

?

Well, is 570gtx a midrange card? honestly, 650M is probably the best mobile graphics card to cost / heat ratio there is. So midrange doesn't really mean anything if you look at a lot of things.

 

[blow45]

As has been said by others...

The new iPad is retina 2048 x 1536 pixels and scrolling is smooth. That's higher resolution than ANY macbook apart from the new macbook pro, yet it's powered by a much smaller GPU.

I'm sure there's room to improve the performance with software and optimisations.

At 2560 x 1440 on a 27" iMac, people running their browser full screen would likely suffer similar low frame rates.

yeah but... and these are crucial points:
a. the ipad has ios, you know the os that apple actually have the good coders working on, the one with the current darwin kernel, and not last year's one, the one that's optimized.
b. the ipad doesn't upscale render at 2x and then downscales which the pro does

----------

What's unacceptable is to expect the impossible, regardless of the price. The problem has clearly been identified, the CPU is the bottleneck for a very small number of tasks with these incredibly high pixel densities. The fact of the matter is we must all ask ourselves, would we rather have these resolutionary displays that have a few hickups or stick to the older resolutions that are smooth and fluid in all tasks. For my part, seeing as I purchased the Retina display, I fall into the former category.

Software optimizations are only going to go so far, and at the end of the day, the scrolling and animations causing some jerkiness are not going to be fully solved. There is no current solution. People complain we should have multi-threaded browsers by now, "its 2012 after all", but if they just paused to think of it for a second, they would realize why that isn't going to happen.

Think of it this way. Imagine you wanted to scroll on a webpage yet have that scrolling handled by multiple-cores. How would that work? Let's imagine we want to use 2 cores. Well, presumably you would have to scroll half the page with one core and the other with the second core. So far so good, but what happens if half the screen has more data to compute? Now you have one core finishing before the other and so what you see on the screen is going to be terrible. Splitting up the tasks over multiple cores runs you straight into a synchronization problem.

If you could find a way to solve that concurrency problem, well then inform Apple, I'm sure they will be happy to cut you a nice check since you will have found the solution to all this lagginess and jitteriness.

If apple weren't in the mobile business they'd have solved the problem, too little software effort for the demands of the macs nowadays, sure the gpu might be reaching it's limits but there are software workarounds here to avoid embarrassing performance... You get a new mac, the most expensive one (i am counting out the mac pro "update" which I consider a bad joke) and it stutters. You don't get extra hard drive space without optical as a lot of other manufacturers provide, you don't get to upgrade with standard industry ssds that are way cheaper and better...hell you don't even get to upgrade your ram even if you decide to in the future. You are spending all that cash for the retina in an the most compromised and non upgradable portable mac ever and the retina won't function as it should.

Apple cannot consistently use their highest paying buyers as guinea pigs for rev 1 products to have bragging rights to introducing a technology. They cannot consistently take away updatability options from their new macs (the latest example was the non upgradeable hard drive of the imac what with the temperature sensor problem). Apple cannot consistently put less effort than required in os x because they need to sell more and more and more idevices. Something's got to give, and it shouldn't be the hard earned cash of the buyers all the time.

The issue is, is anyone at apple having a clue about all that? Or has their behind gotten complacent and cozy sitting on a pile of cash? Did Bob Mansfield retire at 50 and 3 years before becoming 3 million dollars richer because he objected to some of that? Bertrand Serlet left apple to focus on science and not products (and then there was the os x lion fiasco), and now he's part of a cloud start up, which of course is a product, not science. Something stinks to high heaven with all that...

 

[iChrist]

Hmmm, I'm so confused. But this post is moving me more towards the higher end 15" non retina MBP.

Why buy old clunk MacBook??? Apple made perfect thin notebook with retinas. If some say is slow they lie. Anandtech is known to be troll.

 

[Asgorath]

99% certain you are lying. 15 Apps? Yeah right. BS.

To all the disbelievers, this is an example of the performance of a rMBP 2.3 256 GB, ML DP4 machine with 8 GB RAM. The performance is a tad worse with screen capture on. However, it's bad all of the time.

Please stop posting the stupid FaceBook scroll example. The point of this video and what real people who really own this are saying is that the performance is crap for UI events. Swiping into Dashboard. Maximizing windows. Scrolling online, etc.

You'll see in this video, the stutter swiping into and out of Dashboard. Slow, choppiness closing Windows, sluggish Website scrolling, etc. So no, it's not a problem with your computer watching the video, it really is that brutal.

Without further delay, presenting to you, the Ret Ret Ret-ina MacBoo..... k book book Pro... Hit full screen to really see it:

http://s675.photobucket.com/albums/...urrent=Screengrab1920x1200rMBPMLDP4June30.mp4

Maybe try running it at the actual native Retina resolution of 2880x1800 instead of 3840x2400 scaled? There's an extra downscale step on every UI action when you're running at the 1920x1200 HiDPI mode that is not required at the native panel resolution of 1440x900 HiDPI.

 

[AidenShaw]

I'd have to disagree, my rMBP runs fine! I love using Boot Camp on it too, even though Win7 looks terrible on Retina. Anyone know how to fix this?

You don't give much information - what are your settings under Win7 and what is "terrible".

What video driver are you using, and what is the resolution? (Wrong-click the desktop, select "Video resolution".) It should be the actual native resolution - 2880-by-1800.

If stuff is too small at that resolution, magnify the desktop. Wrong-click the desktop, select "Video resolution", then "Make text and other items larger or smaller" - click 125% or 150% and try it out. If you don't like either of these, try "Set custom text size" and enter your scaling factor.

IE also has a "zoom" setting to scale web page contents.

 

[wankey]

99% certain you are lying. 15 Apps? Yeah right. BS.

To all the disbelievers, this is an example of the performance of a rMBP 2.3 256 GB, ML DP4 machine with 8 GB RAM. The performance is a tad worse with screen capture on. However, it's bad all of the time.

Please stop posting the stupid FaceBook scroll example. The point of this video and what real people who really own this are saying is that the performance is crap for UI events. Swiping into Dashboard. Maximizing windows. Scrolling online, etc.

You'll see in this video, the stutter swiping into and out of Dashboard. Slow, choppiness closing Windows, sluggish Website scrolling, etc. So no, it's not a problem with your computer watching the video, it really is that brutal.

Without further delay, presenting to you, the Ret Ret Ret-ina MacBoo..... k book book Pro... Hit full screen to really see it:

http://s675.photobucket.com/albums/...urrent=Screengrab1920x1200rMBPMLDP4June30.mp4

Something's wrong with your software/hardware config.

I just ran it at 1920x1200 scaled, with photoshop, illustrator, safari, iTunes, adium, Skype and coda

And it was smooth as butter. Something's wrong with your laptop

 

[JohnDoe98]

To all the disbelievers, this is an example of the performance of a rMBP 2.3 256 GB, ML DP4 machine with 8 GB RAM. The performance is a tad worse with screen capture on. However, it's bad all of the time.

Tad worse my arse. I just ran a test myself, and if people want I can make some videos to prove it. When I turn on screen capture, the system is much slower and the video looks like yours. When I turn it off, everything is silky smooth, and that's not even on ML like your system. Also, nice internet connection in that video, what are you tethering to your iPhone's 3G connection? No wonder there is all sorts of blurriness when you scroll MacRumors. That's something I can't reproduce on my end.

I'm starting to get the impression you are attempting to mislead people. PS you never showed in your video that you were on a MacBook Pro Retina.

----------

Something's wrong with your software/hardware config.

I just ran it at 1920x1200 scaled, with photoshop, illustrator, safari, iTunes, adium, Skype and coda

And it was smooth as butter. Something's wrong with your laptop

No, try running screen capture in Quicktime. It cripples the system.

----------

If apple weren't in the mobile business they'd have solved the problem, too little software effort for the demands of the macs nowadays, sure the gpu might be reaching it's limits but there are software workarounds here to avoid embarrassing performance...

Yeah more of the same nonsense. You claim it's easy to fix, but you don't explain how to do it.

You get a new mac, the most expensive one (i am counting out the mac pro "update" which I consider a bad joke) and it stutters. You don't get extra hard drive space without optical as a lot of other manufacturers provide, you don't get to upgrade with standard industry ssds that are way cheaper and better...hell you don't even get to upgrade your ram even if you decide to in the future. You are spending all that cash for the retina in an the most compromised and non upgradable portable mac ever and the retina won't function as it should.

Sounds like the classical MBP is a better fit for you. You don't like anything about the Retina MBP. So what are you complaining about? That Apple made a device for people who don't share your desires/wants?

 

[wankey]

Why do I want to do screen capture? My system runs fine.

 

[gnasher729]

That's the stupidest interpretation I've ever heard. No, the retina MBP indeed has a 2880 x 1800 screen, with 2880 x 1800 pixels.

The "relative" resolution of the screen is of course 1440 x 900, but that doesn't mean that it was intended to be used with actual 1440 x 900 res. Come on, that's the resolution of the 13" MBA... and you think a 2200$ computer is meant to be used with lower pixel density than the entry level MacBook Air (non-retina MBP 15": 110 ppi < MBA 13": 128 ppi < MBA 11": 135 ppi), and the retina is just an extra with some additional costs? You must be kidding.

That's the stupidest comeback I've ever heard. The 15" MBP ships with 1440 x 900 points = 1440 x 900 pixels. The Retina MBP with default settings shows 1440 x 900 points, in extreme high quality because it uses 2 x 2 pixels for every point. There have been tons of threads about the Retina MBP, and you still haven't noticed that "points" and "pixels" are now different things?

And yes, the Retina MBP is intended to have larger points than the MacBook Air. That's because the MacBook Air is a shrunk MacBook Pro. The 11" is a shrunk MBP 13", and the MBA 13" is a shrunk MBP 15".

 

[dpasc]

99% certain you are lying. 15 Apps? Yeah right. BS.

When I was at the apple store, the employees there were trying an experiment, and for fun, opened every single app the computer had (couldn't tell you the number though), and when I used the computer for web browsing it didn't feel like it was slowing down the computer at all (btw, this was the cheap MBPr with only 8GB RAM). Don't call something out as BS because you doubt that something can be that powerful.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Why do I want to do screen capture? My system runs fine.

You don't want to do that. I was merely suggesting there is nothing wrong with that system as you suggesed, he/she is just being misleading and giving distorted reports, trying to pull a fast one on us.