Transitioning from MBP 17" to MBPr 15"

[johnnylarue]

You have some nerve to dismiss and belittle rational decisions other people make based on their personal needs and preferences. It's certainly not them, who are hypnotized...

I've come to accept that some people just have a tendency to come across as self-righteous (or worse) when expressing their opinions on the internet. vpro strikes me as a good person who is perhaps a little bit too passionate about his beliefs.

In any case, the proclamation that 13" and 17" computers rule, while 15" computers suck, should probably be taken with a tiny grain of salt!

 

[DHagan4755]

In any case, the proclamation that 13" and 17" computers rule, while 15" computers suck, should probably be taken with a tiny grain of salt!

It's all subjective. No one should denounce a particular screen size.

 

[laurihoefs]

I've come to accept that some people just have a tendency to come across as self-righteous (or worse) when expressing their opinions on the internet. vpro strikes me as a good person who is perhaps a little bit too passionate about his beliefs.

In any case, the proclamation that 13" and 17" computers rule, while 15" computers suck, should probably be taken with a tiny grain of salt!

Well, I realize, that being limited to text-only communication leaves much room to construe tones that were not intended or at all present in the text itself. I also recognize my own tendency to overinterpret.

I sincerely hope I haven't offended vpro or other participants with my harsh choice of words.

 

[PDFierro]

I've come to accept that some people just have a tendency to come across as self-righteous (or worse) when expressing their opinions on the internet. vpro strikes me as a good person who is perhaps a little bit too passionate about his beliefs.

In any case, the proclamation that 13" and 17" computers rule, while 15" computers suck, should probably be taken with a tiny grain of salt!

13-inch is the perfect form factor for me, but I understand it may not be for anyone else. In fact, I have been very interested by your comments. Some people come on here saying the 15-inch screen is too small and that they need the 17-incher back or else, but you have judged things objectively and given good reasoning on what works for you.

So thanks for sharing.

 

[johnnylarue]

Well, I realize, that being limited to text-only communication leaves much room to construe tones that were not intended or at all present in the text itself. I also recognize my own tendency to overinterpret.

I sincerely hope I haven't offended vpro or other participants with my harsh choice of words.

Don't lose any sleep over it, laurihoefs.

 

[sofianito]

I've come to accept that some people just have a tendency to come across as self-righteous (or worse) when expressing their opinions on the internet. vpro strikes me as a good person who is perhaps a little bit too passionate about his beliefs.

In any case, the proclamation that 13" and 17" computers rule, while 15" computers suck, should probably be taken with a tiny grain of salt!

Her beliefs... If I'm not wrong...

 

[GSPice]

Yeah... vpro has issues with 15" rmbp.. you don't have to read many posts to figure that out..

 

[sofianito]

vpro loves only 17" and 13" (r)MBPs... Not sure why she doesn't like 15" rMBP...

 

[johnnylarue]

Her beliefs... If I'm not wrong...

Oops! I guess I should just always use "they" to cover all bases.

 

[GSPice]

vpro loves only 17" and 13" (r)MBPs... Not sure why she doesn't like 15" rMBP...

She makes it very clear in her posts.. clear as mud.

 

[lianlua]

Its not 90% its 82% the size.

No, it's 82% of the area. It's ~90.5% of the dimensional size. The post you didn't read carefully was talking about text height.

ps
The 17" screen IS retina too. Retina is PPI vs distance. The 17" is retina at 26" or 66cm.

No, it isn't. Every display has a retina distance, but not all displays are retina displays because that distance exceeds the standard ergonomic distance at which it is used.

Humans naturally settle into a distance of about 30-40 degrees, which for a 17" display is somewhere around 22-24", which is inside the retina distance. It is therefore not considered a retina display.

How can you "make do" with a much smaller screen for your gorgeous content. I just don't think I'll ever 'get' the 'logic' that some people try and justify around here how a 15" screen is able to 'appear' just as spacious as a 17" display,

Although it's a moot point because the OP has already tested it and found it not to be a problem, let's answer anyway. On a user interface defined in pixel dimensions, you get exactly the same amount of space. When the pixels are smaller and closer together, they're sharper, and when the display is smaller, you naturally sit more closely to it. In terms of field of view as your brain perceives it, there's very little difference.

If you position your eyes about 2" closer to the 15" screen than the 17", it appears the same size to your brain. It's quite a small correction for a supposedly much more "spacious" screen.

As explained by many people, the reason 17" laptops existed was because of the need for additional battery and electronics space and because when the best panels were ~130ppi, you had to go bigger to get higher resolutions.

 

[sofianito]

No, it's 82% of the area. It's ~90.5% of the dimensional size. The post you didn't read carefully was talking about text height.

No, it isn't. Every display has a retina distance, but not all displays are retina displays because that distance exceeds the standard ergonomic distance at which it is used.

Humans naturally settle into a distance of about 30-40 degrees, which for a 17" display is somewhere around 22-24", which is inside the retina distance. It is therefore not considered a retina display.

Although it's a moot point because the OP has already tested it and found it not to be a problem, let's answer anyway. On a user interface defined in pixel dimensions, you get exactly the same amount of space. When the pixels are smaller and closer together, they're sharper, and when the display is smaller, you naturally sit more closely to it. In terms of field of view as your brain perceives it, there's very little difference.

If you position your eyes about 2" closer to the 15" screen than the 17", it appears the same size to your brain. It's quite a small correction for a supposedly much more "spacious" screen.

As explained by many people, the reason 17" laptops existed was because of the need for additional battery and electronics space and because when the best panels were ~130ppi, you had to go bigger to get higher resolutions.

Retina distance calculator

 

[PDFierro]

Retina distance calculator

I'd like Spain to be a Retina distance from me.

 

[sofianito]

I'd like Spain to be a Retina distance from me.

Lol

 

[lianlua]

Retina distance calculator

Yep, that tells you the retina distance of a screen. It doesn't tell you whether that distance is inside the working distance to be a retina display. For that, all you need to calculate angular size.

 

[sofianito]

Yep, that tells you the retina distance of a screen. It doesn't tell you whether that distance is inside the working distance to be a retina display. For that, all you need to calculate angular size.

Could you elaborate more with a practical example?
For instance the 15" cMBP becomes retina (human eyes dodo not distinguish pixels) at a viewing distance of 31" (79 cm). What it the working distance and angular size in this example?

 

[elvisidal]

been wondering the same thing here.15" retina or old 17"
if i can go from a 17" MBP to a 13" MBP and get used to it where it's pretty much a non event I'm pretty sure I can handle the retina display
I did try one out in a reseller store but the sales guy was a bit pushy & hellicoptered the whole time as i tried to quickly run through a few basic daily tasks

 

[lianlua]

Could you elaborate more with a practical example?
For instance the 15" cMBP becomes retina (human eyes dodo not distinguish pixels) at a viewing distance of 31" (79 cm). What it the working distance and angular size in this example?

The working distance for most mid-sized displays (laptops and desktop monitors) is 30-40 degrees. On a 15" display, that's roughly 21-25".

Because the retina distance of the cMBP is 31", which is much farther away than the 21-25" where it should be used (notwithstanding the inevitable outliers who rest their chins on the touchpad or use their laptops from across the room), it's not a retina display. On the other hand, the rMBP's retina distance of 16" is much less than 21", so it is a retina display.

What this means is that if you're a person who prefers to be on the farther side of normal, you're likely to think retina displays are overhyped, while if you're a close-in person, they're probably downright magical to you.

This is also why not all retina displays need to be 300+ ppi. A 50" 3840x2160 Apple TV, which you'd expect to be used at 7-10 feet or more, would be a retina display despite only being 88ppi or so because its retina distance is less than 4 feet.

"Retina" is just Apple's shorthand term for the relationship of pixel size to working distance, but they didn't invent the concepts.

The classic rule of thumb for setting up an office workstation (desktop monitor) is to position it 24-30" from your eyes (this same 30-40 degree view for a 17-22" typical office monitor). Sitting closer is bad for your eyes' ability to focus and also tends to be psychologically uncomfortable. Movie theaters are also set up so that most seats are in this "comfort zone" as well, and it plays a similar role in broadcast and print advertising to guide text sizes.

 

[GSPice]

I'm interested to see 4k in theaters..

 

[johnnylarue]

What this means is that if you're a person who prefers to be on the farther side of normal, you're likely to think retina displays are overhyped, while if you're a close-in person, they're probably downright magical to you.

The classic rule of thumb for setting up an office workstation (desktop monitor) is to position it 24-30" from your eyes (this same 30-40 degree view for a 17-22" typical office monitor). Sitting closer is bad for your eyes' ability to focus and also tends to be psychologically uncomfortable. Movie theaters are also set up so that most seats are in this "comfort zone" as well, and it plays a similar role in broadcast and print advertising to guide text sizes.

Lianlua, your contributions to this thread--while occasionally flirting with some obliquely technical concepts--have largely been super informative and, dare I say it, enlightening! Thanks for taking the time put in your two cents.

 

[johnnylarue]

been wondering the same thing here.15" retina or old 17"
if i can go from a 17" MBP to a 13" MBP and get used to it where it's pretty much a non event I'm pretty sure I can handle the retina display
I did try one out in a reseller store but the sales guy was a bit pushy & hellicoptered the whole time as i tried to quickly run through a few basic daily tasks

I had the good fortune of being in the Apple Store while it was busy. And keeping in line with recent sales figures, NO ONE was interested in "big, expensive" laptops so I had time to dawdle on my own.

The retina screen put my fears to rest. I'm still contemplating getting a used 17", but almost entirely for monetary reasons at this point. Getting a new 15" retina is easily the more attractive option for me. Keeping my fingers crossed that the recent rumors of a September release date for the Haswell MPB turn out to be correct.

Funny to think that in a mere five days since my 17" was stolen, I've gone from the depths of despair to the dizzying heights of "new computer fever". Ah, capitalism...

 

[sofianito]

The working distance for most mid-sized displays (laptops and desktop monitors) is 30-40 degrees. On a 15" display, that's roughly 21-25".

Thanks for the explanation, but you are defining the working distance as an angle (30-40°), then as a distance (21"-25"). . I still don't understand how you calculate the working distance?

My understanding is that if a person is sitting in front of a screen, the viewing angle would be the angle formed from the center of his eyes and the edges of the screen:

    ---------- (screen width)
    \        /
      \    /
        \/
       o o (eyes)

You cannot calculate the vertical distance to the screen if you don't define the viewing angle and vice-versa...

 

[lianlua]

Lianlua, your contributions to this thread--while occasionally flirting with some obliquely technical concepts--have largely been super informative and, dare I say it, enlightening! Thanks for taking the time put in your two cents.

Happy to help.

Thanks for the explanation, but you are defining the working distance as an angle (30-40°), then as a distance (21"-25"). . I still don't understand how you calculate the working distance?

Sorry, I'm not sure where you're confused. The working distance is the range of distance that falls in that range of angular diameter. All you need to complete that calculation is the width of the screen.

 

[sofianito]

Happy to help.

Sorry, I'm not sure where you're confused. The working distance is the range of distance that falls in that range of angular diameter. All you need to complete that calculation is the width of the screen.

You defined the working distance concept as being an angle of 30-40°, and I am asking why should it be this range? Who defined that the working distance for 15" laptops should be that angle range? I could perfectly sit at 31" from screen, which means the angle range is smaller.

 

[Quu]

I'm about to make this switch myself. 17" 1920x1200 to the Retina 15".

I used one in store and opened up a bunch of windows and sized them to how I'd have them at home and I found it cramped. This was at the default retina resolution. Then I set it to the higher 1920x1200 equivalent and it felt usable the things on the screen weren't too small for me and I was at the same distance I am at home on my 17" MBP.

I'd love a new 17" in Retina form with a 4K panel. But I'm willing to make the sacrifice and go with the 15" model for Haswell, 802.11ac, PCIe SSD, huge amounts of RAM etc

I don't blame some of you for not doing it though this is a very personal choice and I'm making a sacrifice and I'm not happy that I have to do it, but it is what it is.