iPad mini The iPad Mini retina discussion from a new angle?

[DJinTX]

The iPad 3/4 vs. iPad Mini thing has been discussed to death in comparing display quality, but it occurred to me that I haven't seen this discussed in terms of comparing to other Apple hardware.

Other than my iPhone 4S, I have no retina equipped devices and have not become "spoiled" as some here have admitted to. If Apple delivers a retina MiniPad next year (or the year after) in an affordable super portable form factor, then I could see upgrading, but for now I am fine with non-retina. I have tried the mini in the store and like the display very much.

With that said, I started wondering how the iPad mini compares to my Late 2008 unibody MacBook. I use my MacBook all the time, and the screen looks great to me. As it turns out, my MacBook has 112ppi, compared to the Mini's 163ppi. So not only is it an improvement over the iPad 2, but it is a huge improvement over what I have already. I thought this was extremely interesting and thought others here might find this comparison helpful.

I understand that many people here absolutely place high priority on retina and need it in their devices, and that is fine. Everyone has their own specific needs. But I also think there are plenty of people out there who are going to love the new minis, that is until they become spoiled by a retina somewhere along the line.

Whether you get a mini, or iPad 4, or wait for the 5 or mini 2, I wish you all tons of enjoyment with your iPad.

Later all~

 

[zhenya]

Its true, but you have left out the distance component in your formula. Many computer screens have relatively low pixel density, but you tend to view them from a greater distance.

Even still, outside of the traditional 'retina' formula I'm quite certain I can discern the lack of sharpness, even if I can't 'see' the individual pixels. I can't wait for high resolution screens to become commonplace.

 

[comatose81]

A new angle, huh...

 

[kas23]

Not a new angle. All I can say is that I've been viewing a Retina Display since June 24th, 2010 and can't transport myself back 2 years. I think Apple misjudged their target audenience for this device. They wanted to shoot for the gutters and kids in grade school and didn't realize it would have such a mass appeal. They could have stuck a Retina in this and charged the same as a regular iPad and they likely would have sold more than they already have.

 

[DJinTX]

Its true, but you have left out the distance component in your formula. Many computer screens have relatively low pixel density, but you tend to view them from a greater distance.

Even still, outside of the traditional 'retina' formula I'm quite certain I can discern the lack of sharpness, even if I can't 'see' the individual pixels. I can't wait for high resolution screens to become commonplace.

Very good point. If I had some way to quantify the two displays to account for distance, I am guessing the Mini would still have a better display, especially since my MacBook is 5 years old. Likewise, I know it is a slight improvement over iPad 2, and that display looks good to me also. I'll enjoy my mini (if I ever find one to buy), and then if they adopt a retina in a year or two, I could see upgrading. Until then I should be very happy. I feel fortunate that I never got an iPad 3/4. It would likely have ruined my appreciation of the mini.

 

[stringbeanie]

I have just been made aware of the only advantage of my poor close distance vision. I can't see the difference in the retina vs no retina display. I'm thrilled with the mini just as it is.