rMBP screen allternative ??

Tobias Funke

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Apr 3, 2012
628
59
Just a quick question.

Do you think the rMBP would have been better off with a high quality 1920x1200 screen,

Rather than the 1440x900 (2880x1800) retina screen ??

Just something I have been wondering. :D

I know you can scale to this resolution before somebody says that. ;)
 

mykelala01

macrumors 6502
May 17, 2009
302
2
Just a quick question.

Do you think the rMBP would have been better off with a high quality 1920x1200 screen,

Rather than the 1440x900 (2880x1800) retina screen ??

Just something I have been wondering. :D

I know you can scale to this resolution before somebody says that. ;)
First of all Apple uses 1920x1200 as a standard resolution for 17 inch Macbook Pro... 1440x900 is a standard for 15 inch display. It makes sense right? It is only practical for Apple to scale its 15 inch rMBP to its standard resolution.
 

Tobias Funke

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Apr 3, 2012
628
59
I agree there are standards.

But from what I read on this forum people want more "real estate"

And a lot of people run there rMBP in 1920x1200 anyway.

So would it not have been better to have this native rather than retina ?? :D

----------

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rajpdx

macrumors regular
Jun 16, 2012
182
0
Just a quick question.

Do you think the rMBP would have been better off with a high quality 1920x1200 screen,

Rather than the 1440x900 (2880x1800) retina screen ??

Just something I have been wondering. :D

I know you can scale to this resolution before somebody says that. ;)
No.

The scaled 1920 x 1200 looks at least as good as native to me, and possibly better. So I can't see the advantage of a 1920 native display in this case.

Given that the 1920 quality is so good, and there's the option of 1680 which is also impressive and the 1440 looks so great why wouldn't I want that?
 

DVD9

macrumors 6502a
Feb 18, 2010
735
421
Just a quick question.

Do you think the rMBP would have been better off with a high quality 1920x1200 screen,

Rather than the 1440x900 (2880x1800) retina screen ??

Just something I have been wondering. :D

I know you can scale to this resolution before somebody says that. ;)
The answer depends upon how you feel about the scrolling issue with the Retina screen.
 

Tobias Funke

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Apr 3, 2012
628
59
The answer depends upon how you feel about the scrolling issue with the Retina screen.
Maybe with a native 1920x1200 screen ALL graphical issues people are having would have been non existent? :confused:

There was none I can think of on the 17 inch MBP.
 

Rajpdx

macrumors regular
Jun 16, 2012
182
0
Maybe with a native 1920x1200 screen ALL graphical issues people are having would have been non existent? :confused:

There was none I can think of on the 17 inch MBP.
Wouldn't know - I've not been having any graphical issues.

As far as graphical issues are concerned it strikes me that most of the complaints come from people using the machine at 1920 or 1680 res - which Apple have made a decision to try to render to the highest possible quality rather than just a straightforward translation - like we would see the 17" native display try to do.
 

Adidas Addict

macrumors 65816
Sep 9, 2008
1,455
0
England
Maybe with a native 1920x1200 screen ALL graphical issues people are having would have been non existent? :confused:

There was none I can think of on the 17 inch MBP.
1: What graphical issues? None at all here.
2: Why would anyone want the retina display downgraded to 1920x1200, are you on hard drugs?
 

PS65

macrumors 6502
Jan 25, 2008
253
1
United Kingdom
1: What graphical issues? None at all here.
2: Why would anyone want the retina display downgraded to 1920x1200, are you on hard drugs?
Exactly my thoughts!

Bottom line; people who don't have a rMBP are complaining more than those who do. I have not once noticed any graphical issues, and I am pushing it to a thunderbolt display, too.

This post, along with several other posts, is here to serve no purpose other than to confuse potential purchasers and deter them from purchasing the best Apple MacBook Pro ever made.
 

neilpryde23

macrumors regular
Nov 28, 2011
150
0
1: What graphical issues? None at all here.
2: Why would anyone want the retina display downgraded to 1920x1200, are you on hard drugs?
I thought he/she meant 1920x1200 as 3840x2400 so it would be 'retina' with the 'best for retina' having the same effective screen real estate as 1920x1200 instead of 1440x900 since most people who are complaining are saying the lag is more prominent on those scaled settings.
 

rikbrown

macrumors regular
Jun 29, 2010
214
0
The Apple crack you guys are smoking is insane. The rMBP is good, sure, but there is noticeably increased visual lag (maximising/expose/etc) compared with a standard MBP. I don't understand the apologists who pretend there isn't. I got over it, I use a Thunderbolt Display as my primary screen - where everything is smooth and fine - but once a window gets dragged over into the rMBP screen/if I'm undocked - it's all sorts of lag in comparison.
 

stevelam

macrumors 65816
Nov 4, 2010
1,215
3
The Apple crack you guys are smoking is insane. The rMBP is good, sure, but there is noticeably increased visual lag (maximising/expose/etc) compared with a standard MBP. I don't understand the apologists who pretend there isn't. I got over it, I use a Thunderbolt Display as my primary screen - where everything is smooth and fine - but once a window gets dragged over into the rMBP screen/if I'm undocked - it's all sorts of lag in comparison.
Yep pretty much. The ones who don't see the lag are the ones who literally do nothing on their RMBP besides post on internet forums.
 

Tobias Funke

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Apr 3, 2012
628
59
I thought he/she meant 1920x1200 as 3840x2400 so it would be 'retina' with the 'best for retina' having the same effective screen real estate as 1920x1200 instead of 1440x900 since most people who are complaining are saying the lag is more prominent on those scaled settings.
Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I meant just a normal 1920x1200 screen like on the 17 inch MBP but on a 15 inch MBP.

Rather than a retina screen.

Which is just a sharp 1440x900 screen. :D
 

NutsNGum

macrumors 68030
Jul 30, 2010
2,849
323
Glasgow, Scotland
The Apple crack you guys are smoking is insane. The rMBP is good, sure, but there is noticeably increased visual lag (maximising/expose/etc) compared with a standard MBP. I don't understand the apologists who pretend there isn't. I got over it, I use a Thunderbolt Display as my primary screen - where everything is smooth and fine - but once a window gets dragged over into the rMBP screen/if I'm undocked - it's all sorts of lag in comparison.
This is an honest post. I've noticed it too. Same deal, on Thunderbolt display, smooth as you like. On its own, choppy seas on the scaled resolutions.
 

PS65

macrumors 6502
Jan 25, 2008
253
1
United Kingdom
Yep pretty much. The ones who don't see the lag are the ones who literally do nothing on their RMBP besides post on internet forums.
The Apple crack you guys are smoking is insane. The rMBP is good, sure, but there is noticeably increased visual lag (maximising/expose/etc) compared with a standard MBP. I don't understand the apologists who pretend there isn't. I got over it, I use a Thunderbolt Display as my primary screen - where everything is smooth and fine - but once a window gets dragged over into the rMBP screen/if I'm undocked - it's all sorts of lag in comparison.
So whilst you're powering ANOTHER screen, your GPU is struggling on the Retina? :eek:
 

jacktorrance

macrumors regular
Jul 21, 2009
211
8
Just a quick question.

Do you think the rMBP would have been better off with a high quality 1920x1200 screen,

Rather than the 1440x900 (2880x1800) retina screen ??

Just something I have been wondering. :D

I know you can scale to this resolution before somebody says that. ;)
What does high quality mean?
 

ixodes

macrumors 601
Jan 11, 2012
4,430
2
Pacific Coast, USA
First we should debunk the "Retina" Myth.

Apple has a brilliant marketing strategy that Steve Jobs created many years ago, as only he could do. Here's how it goes: take an existing technology, give it a clever and compelling new name, then sell that name to the public as something so special that it's irresistible. Appeal to "the dreamers" give the masses something to make them feel special.

Having already created a cult like following of worshipers to hang on his every word, they'd embrace whatever he gave them as gospel, and spread the word. It was a brilliant and time tested way then, and remains so now.

Example:
Apple decides to use WiFi.

Jobs renames it "AirPort" then hypes it & sells it to the masses during a keynote speech. Suddenly even the otherwise intelligent tech-savy users get all excited having heard from their hero, and it's now something special.

iThis, iThat,
Time Machine
Time Capsule
AirPort Express Base Station
AirPort Extreme Base Station... Oh WOW!

And now... *drum roll* ... RETINA !

See? You get the picture. Jobs was nothing if not the worlds best salesman. Just look at all the success he created. Look at the massive revenue & ultra high margins generated by convincing people he had the "Magic"... and he did! :)

Fast forward to "Retina" his last big thing.

Nothing more that a fancy name for a high resolution IPS display, he whipped everyone into a buying frenzy convincing them that unless it was a Magical Retina display, it was nothing special.

All you have to do is read the forums here to see all the posts created by the worshipers saying things like once you've gone Retina, there's no going back. It's an amazing yet time tested phenomenon. A brilliant strategy that a super ego, an ultra narssistic guy like Steve could pull off.

He got people salivating for "one more thing". He left them wanting more. To this day it's reflected here over and over ad nauseum.

Better than David Copperfield, Steve Jobs was the ultimate showman, magician, and salesman. Very impressive. Everyone loves it, Hollywood can identify since they sell dreams.

It put Apple on the map forever.
 

PS65

macrumors 6502
Jan 25, 2008
253
1
United Kingdom
First we should debunk the "Retina" Myth.

Apple has a brilliant marketing strategy that Steve Jobs created many years ago, as only he could do. Here's how it goes: take an existing technology, give it a clever and compelling new name, then sell that name to the public as something so special that it's irresistible. Appeal to "the dreamers" give the masses something to make them feel special.

Having already created a cult like following of worshipers to hang on his every word, they'd embrace whatever he gave them as gospel, and spread the word. It was a brilliant and time tested way then, and remains so now.

Example:
Apple decides to use WiFi.

Jobs renames it "AirPort" then hypes it & sells it to the masses during a keynote speech. Suddenly even the otherwise intelligent tech-savy users get all excited having heard from their hero, and it's now something special.

iThis, iThat,
Time Machine
Time Capsule
AirPort Express Base Station
AirPort Extreme Base Station... Oh WOW!

And now... *drum roll* ... RETINA !

See? You get the picture. Jobs was nothing if not the worlds best salesman. Just look at all the success he created. Look at the massive revenue & ultra high margins generated by convincing people he had the "Magic"... and he did! :)

Fast forward to "Retina" his last big thing.

Nothing more that a fancy name for a high resolution IPS display, he whipped everyone into a buying frenzy convincing them that unless it was a Magical Retina display, it was nothing special.

All you have to do is read the forums here to see all the posts created by the worshipers saying things like once you've gone Retina, there's no going back. It's an amazing yet time tested phenomenon. A brilliant strategy that a super ego, an ultra narssistic guy like Steve could pull off.

He got people salivating for "one more thing". He left them wanting more. To this day it's reflected here over and over ad nauseum.

Better than David Copperfield, Steve Jobs was the ultimate showman, magician, and salesman. Very impressive. Everyone loves it, Hollywood can identify since they sell dreams.

It put Apple on the map forever.

I agree and disagree with you. I agree on the naming etc, it is awful and most people don't realise that.

I completely disagree on your point that this is just existing technology. I purchased my retina display because I love the clarity that was offered by a high density DPI screen, not because it is 'retina'.

I am being honest, seeing a rMBP screen and using it everyday does make your average screen look...well..poor.

The bottom line is, whilst Apple may use the naming and marketing to hype their products, they tend to be the first that use new technologies well.

Touch screen is the best example of that....

Bottom line; there is not point in being anti-Apple or pro-Apple. Have a balance!
 

rikbrown

macrumors regular
Jun 29, 2010
214
0
So whilst you're powering ANOTHER screen, your GPU is struggling on the Retina? :eek:
It does the same thing without the external screen plugged in. I was mentioning that to make the point that on the external screen (not retina scaled) it's fine; on the scaled retina screen, it isn't.
 

Stetrain

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2009
3,548
18
Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I meant just a normal 1920x1200 screen like on the 17 inch MBP but on a 15 inch MBP.

Rather than a retina screen.

Which is just a sharp 1440x900 screen. :D
The 2880x1800 retina display gives you the flexibility of choosing your own scale. Going with a 1920x1200 display would have pretty much fixed people into that resolution. Besides, the retina display still provides more detail/information at the "looks like 1920x1200" than a native 1920x1200 screen.
 

Dustman

macrumors 65816
Apr 17, 2007
1,273
48
Question. If you select 1920x1200, is it actually running at 2880 still? just with the icons and whatnot running at the size they would be if it was actually at that resolution? OR are you actually running it at true 1920x1200 resulting in slightly skewed looking picture as it's not at native?

If the sooner is true, I wish all laptops performed like this. I am assuming however that it's the latter thats the case.