Video: Testing the New M5 Apple Vision Pro

[vantelimus]

I don’t notice any occasional stutter with m2 one. Sure you’re not making things up to feel better about upgrading? Seriously there’s hardly any difference other than a 99 dollar head strap. Returned the new one.

Why would I bother making something like that up? That makes no sense. No, you aren't going to notice any problem if you are using the device like a media consumer. But, if you are running the developer beta software, doing AVP development, streaming video, running compute intensive tasks, and moving windows around, you can see an occasional glitch on the M2. If you aren't pushing yours, then you were smart to return the new one. The M2 will work just fine for non-professionals. It is also fine for professionals who don't mind the rare glitch or two when moving a window or don't tax its performance.

 

[Circa1984]

Sounds like the new processing delivers, now the next version needs to dramatically reduce weight & ‘goggle’ size, increase battery life and integrate the battery pack into the head strap - no dangling wires. That may require the energy savings of a M7 chip and more advanced energy efficient displays - 2 gens from now. As for content, compelling, unique, jaw dropping interactive games and additional immersive video titles are desperately needed. Address all of the above and the hardware will start to gain sales momentum.

 

[afreemanmd]

Thank you for the review. I purchased the original Vision Pro but returned it. The two hardware dealbreakers for me were the annoying foveal rendering, which you say is now not noticeable, and also the rendering of my physical display virtually, which, side by side, was worse than the virtual displays that I created. My physical Apple Studio Display was granular, with text that was hard to read when rendered virtually. I don't think you commented on this latter issue, but I would be very interested to learn what anyone's experience was with this. If resolved, this, along with improving content, would make this much more appealing.

 

[vantelimus]

Thank you for the review. I purchased the original Vision Pro but returned it. The two hardware dealbreakers for me were the annoying foveal rendering, which you say is now not noticeable, and also the rendering of my physical display virtually, which, side by side, was worse than the virtual displays that I created. My physical Apple Studio Display was granular, with text that was hard to read when rendered virtually. I don't think you commented on this latter issue, but I would be very interested to learn what anyone's experience was with this. If resolved, this, along with improving content, would make this much more appealing.

When the AVP came out, there was no support for the Mac Virtual Display (MVD). There were third party apps using VNC that never worked well. I suspect you used one of those since you referred to your physical display being rendered virtually. MVD does not mirror the contents of your virtual display like a VNC connection. It gives you a display into your Mac using the Continuity Display facility. Your physical display isn't rendered. It is replaced. In fact, your physical display goes blank so there is no "side by side" possible. As long as your Mac can run macOS Sonoma, you should be able to use Continuity Display.

I have no problem with MVD. It doesn't render your virtual display. The text is easily readable for me in the "Default" resolution mode, regardless of whether I'm using Standard, Wide, or the Ultrawide setting with the display window set at its smallest (the display size scales larger the further away you move it). If I double the resolution using the the "Displays" settings on the Mac, I can still read the text, but it is not as comfortable and I have to increase the size of the window. With default Wide (3360x1440) and Utrawide (5120x1440) MVD modes, there is enough screen real estate that I don't feel the need to use the higher resolution (i.e. 6720x2880 and 10240x2880, respectively).

 

[TechnoMonk]

When the AVP came out, there was no support for the Mac Virtual Display (MVD). There were third party apps using VNC that never worked well. I suspect you used one of those since you referred to your physical display being rendered virtually. MVD does not mirror the contents of your virtual display like a VNC connection. It gives you a display into your Mac using the Continuity Display facility. Your physical display isn't rendered. It is replaced. In fact, your physical display goes blank so there is no "side by side" possible. As long as your Mac can run macOS Sonoma, you should be able to use Continuity Display.

I have no problem with MVD. It doesn't render your virtual display. The text is easily readable for me in the "Default" resolution mode, regardless of whether I'm using Standard, Wide, or the Ultrawide setting with the display window set at its smallest (the display size scales larger the further away you move it). If I double the resolution using the the "Displays" settings on the Mac, I can still read the text, but it is not as comfortable and I have to increase the size of the window. With default Wide (3360x1440) and Utrawide (5120x1440) MVD modes, there is enough screen real estate that I don't feel the need to use the higher resolution (i.e. 6720x2880 and 10240x2880, respectively).

If the physical display goes blank do you use a MBP built in keyboard or external keyboard. I thought MVp extended mac display.

 

[vantelimus]

If the physical display goes blank do you use a MBP built in keyboard or external keyboard. I thought MVp extended mac display.

You use the built-in keyboard and trackpad. The display goes black because the Continuity Display facility renders on the Mac and displays the buffer on the Mac Virtual Display on the AVP. The buffer is the size you pick for the MVD and isn't related to the display on your MBP. If it didn't go black (which I suppose they could make work), then you'd be looking at the physical display through the AVP. Its useable but not the way you want to look at a display for long periods.