Transitioning from MBP 17" to MBPr 15"

[clyde2801]

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.

Maybe you could grab a used or refurbed 2011 17" to see if that can get you through a couple more years.

 

[Quu]

Maybe you could grab a used or refurbed 2011 17" to see if that can get you through a couple more years.

Naw I'd rather have the newer stuff. Haswell, 802.11ac, PCIe SSD, 16GB RAM etc

I've already considered getting a 2011 17" and dismissed it.

 

[Mattstrete]

Oh when I home I have wireless keyboard with touch pad and hook up the 17"MBP to 3 TB displays.

How are you using 3 TBDs at once? I can only get two to run on my rMBP, which has two dedicated thunderbolt ports. And a Matrox dual-display adapter will still not help with this.

----------

which 17" screen did you have matte or glossy?

It was the glossy. (I think I know what you're getting at - some of my other matte LCDs do introduce a certain kind of fuzziness).

 

[lianlua]

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?

As I said, it has been the standard range in the industry for more than 25 years based on the study of human ergonomics, optics, perception, and psychology.

OSHA recommends 20-40" depending on the size of the monitor. Most HR guidelines say an arm's length from a typical 17-22" office monitor. Once you get to 27, 30 inch monitors and bigger, you will naturally start pushing yourself back from it.

THX theaters are required to position viewers between 26 and 36 degrees. SMPTE recommends 30 degrees as ideal.

Large televisions and screens bigger than that (billboards, cinema, etc.), along with phones/tablets/handheld screens tend to be on the low range of 20-30 degrees. Mid-size screens like laptops, desktop monitors, and small TVs tend to be on the high side (30-40 degrees).

Some people try to set up their TV to replicate a cinema experience and really push the limits of living room comfort at 40 degrees while others use a more conventional setup of about 20 degrees.

But any way you slice it, the recommended working distance converges around 30 degrees. No one recommends anything less than 20 or more than 40 degrees, period.

I could perfectly sit at 31" from screen, which means the angle range is smaller.

You could, but that's 27 degrees, which is a little on the far side of normal. Individual preference isn't a factor when objective parameters are set any more than individual visual acuity is.

However, if that is your personal preferred distance and your eyesight is average or worse, then that would suggest that paying a premium for a retina MBP would not necessarily be worth it for you because you're close to the retina distance of the regular 1440x900 display already.

 

[lianlua]

It also means that if you're accustomed to sitting 31" from the 17-inch model, at 30 degrees, then moving to the 15" model means all you have to do is scoot just 2" closer and the size difference between the 15 and 17" models, as your brain perceives, it becomes zero.

 

[sofianito]

As I said, it has been the standard range in the industry for more than 25 years based on the study of human ergonomics, optics, perception, and psychology.

OSHA recommends 20-40" depending on the size of the monitor. Most HR guidelines say an arm's length from a typical 17-22" office monitor. Once you get to 27, 30 inch monitors and bigger, you will naturally start pushing yourself back from it.

THX theaters are required to position viewers between 26 and 36 degrees. SMPTE recommends 30 degrees as ideal.

Large televisions and screens bigger than that (billboards, cinema, etc.), along with phones/tablets/handheld screens tend to be on the low range of 20-30 degrees. Mid-size screens like laptops, desktop monitors, and small TVs tend to be on the high side (30-40 degrees).

Some people try to set up their TV to replicate a cinema experience and really push the limits of living room comfort at 40 degrees while others use a more conventional setup of about 20 degrees.

But any way you slice it, the recommended working distance converges around 30 degrees. No one recommends anything less than 20 or more than 40 degrees, period.

You could, but that's 27 degrees, which is a little on the far side of normal. Individual preference isn't a factor when objective parameters are set any more than individual visual acuity is.

However, if that is your personal preferred distance and your eyesight is average or worse, then that would suggest that paying a premium for a retina MBP would not necessarily be worth it for you because you're close to the retina distance of the regular 1440x900 display already.

Great! Thanks a lot for the explanation

 

[whitedragon101]

I had the matte one, which was a phenomenal display. But I have to agree with Clyde--all numbers and mathematics aside, the Retina is much easier on the eyes, even viewing Logic in full-screen 1920x1200 mode.

In spite of the bigger screen, the 17" doesn't have the pixel-power to resolve small text without adding fuzzy edges, and those edges do make a difference, whether you're viewing from two inches away or two feet.

The matte display was also significantly lower in contrast--which was great for photo editing, but a bit more fatiguing for reading. (At least for me it was.)

The matte screen is fuzzy because of the matte diffuser not the screen panel. The diffuser diffuses light in and out of the screen, that's why apple don't like them. Matte screens all look fuzzy that's why there is no point having a matte option for the newer super high res mac panels .

The glossy 17" is sharp . Not just sharp but as I said before it is retina too at normal distances .

 

[johnnylarue]

The matte screen is fuzzy because of the matte diffuser not the screen panel. The diffuser diffuses light in and out of the screen, that's why apple don't like them. Matte screens all look fuzzy that's why there is no point having a matte option for the newer super high res mac panels .

The glossy 17" is sharp . Not just sharp but as I said before it is retina too at normal distances .

When I tried the 17" glossy in the store (bear in mind this was the 2010 model) I felt like I was looking into a vanity mirror. The reflective-ness was a deal breaker for me, especially after years of working on a matte PB.

I know the retina screens are much improved in this regard, so perhaps the late 2011 17" screens were also better. But I can tell you that it was definitely 'no contest' when it came to choosing anti-glare on my 2010 MBP.

 

[vpro]

The matte screen is fuzzy because of the matte diffuser not the screen panel. The diffuser diffuses light in and out of the screen, that's why apple don't like them. Matte screens all look fuzzy that's why there is no point having a matte option for the newer super high res mac panels .

The glossy 17" is sharp . Not just sharp but as I said before it is retina too at normal distances .

I also have an anti-glare late 2011 17"MBP and non of the fuzzy you talk about is there, I think in PCs for sure it is like they put something on the surface just kind of gunk it on there to diffuse light. The anti-glare at least for the 17"MBP hi-rez is superb.

For the comment about the glossy 17"MBP being like a vanity mirror, well, if you are not fixed on your content you will see everything else, the mind and the eyes are our most latest and greatest technologies which we hardly ever use, so if we focus on the reflection more than the content on the display - then of course that is going to distract you from the task at hand my friend. It is just your eyes shifting focus on the hangups that's all.

Thank you ! ^_^

 

[whitedragon101]

When I tried the 17" glossy in the store (bear in mind this was the 2010 model) I felt like I was looking into a vanity mirror. The reflective-ness was a deal breaker for me, especially after years of working on a matte PB.

I know the retina screens are much improved in this regard, so perhaps the late 2011 17" screens were also better. But I can tell you that it was definitely 'no contest' when it came to choosing anti-glare on my 2010 MBP.

I agree about the reflectivity but I couldn't deal with the blur of the matte. Unfortunately the 17" never got the single piece glass front of the retina screens ( I.e it still has the double front ) . Fingers crossed for a retina 17"

 

[sofianito]

I also have an anti-glare late 2011 17"MBP and non of the fuzzy you talk about is there, I think in PCs for sure it is like they put something on the surface just kind of gunk it on there to diffuse light. The anti-glare at least for the 17"MBP hi-rez is superb.

For the comment about the glossy 17"MBP being like a vanity mirror, well, if you are not fixed on your content you will see everything else, the mind and the eyes are our most latest and greatest technologies which we hardly ever use, so if we focus on the reflection more than the content on the display - then of course that is going to distract you from the task at hand my friend. It is just your eyes shifting focus on the hangups that's all.

Thank you ! ^_^

I have too a late 2007 17" MBP hiresmatte 1920x1200. The screen is nice and neatneat, and I never get eye strain like I do with my glossy late 2008 15" MBP...