With the same diagonal a 16:10 rMBP has a screen which is 5.18% percent bigger, but also has 11% fewer pixels. These pixels may be wasted in certain applications, but in my experience they should often come in handy. Programs that are unable to make use of the extra workspace added in the 16:9 screen generally waste far more than 11% of the horizontal workspace. Word would be an example. A 16:10 display is only about 8% physically taller, and a 16:9 display is less than 3% wider than a 16:10 display. To me these differences seem very small compared to the other advantages currently offered in 16:9 panels. Is text easier to read because it's 8% taller? Is a 8% taller icon easier to click? I guess so, but not by very much. I don't know what kind of hotdogs you're eating that are anywhere close to the ratio of 16:9. It's actually kind of amusing to me how much people obsess over the advantages of 16:10 over 16:9 laptops, especially when you see how small the differences are in numbers and even more so when they dismiss advantages on the other side.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Waiting for Haswell MBP Mega Thread
- Thread starter thadoggfather
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
With the same diagonal a 16:10 rMBP has a screen which is 5.18% percent bigger, but also has 11% fewer pixels. These pixels may be wasted in certain applications, but in my experience they should often come in handy. Programs that are unable to make use of the extra workspace added in the 16:9 screen generally waste far more than 11% of the horizontal workspace. Word would be an example. A 16:10 display is only about 8% physically taller, and a 16:9 display is less than 3% wider than a 16:10 display. To me these differences seem very small compared to the other advantages currently offered in 16:9 panels. Is text easier to read because it's 8% taller? Is a 8% taller icon easier to click? I guess so, but not by very much. I don't know what kind of hotdogs you're eating that are anywhere close to the ratio of 16:9. It's actually kind of amusing to me how much people obsess over the advantages of 16:10 over 16:9 laptops, especially when you see how small the differences are in numbers and even more so when they dismiss advantages on the other side.
Attack me if you like. All I am telling you is what the Intel CPU ID utility is telling me. I have no idea what it reads or how it works but that is what it is reporting. I am truly not convinced that I have a Haswell CPU. That is why I followed up my comments with questions. However, I do find it odd that it is being reported as a Haswell based processor.
This forum is for sharing information and that is all I am doing. To avoid being called a troll again or being attacked, I will comment no further on this. You guys are harsh.
[/COLOR]
Click "About this Mac" --> "More info..." What does "About this Mac" say your Graphics Processor is? If it says HD 4000, you have ivy bridge, and it doesn't matter what CPU ID says.
Click "About this Mac" --> "More info..." What does "About this Mac" say your Graphics Processor is? If it says HD 4000, you have ivy bridge, and it doesn't matter what CPU ID says.
A person's only going to be expected to argue for their own usage case. I don't find myself working in two windows side by side, so I don't find that useful and don't see it as an advantage. I do see a physically taller screen as an advantage because in my usage it allows me to show more of what I'm working on at once, even if it's only a small amount.
The actual pixels available are relatively unimportant at these resolutions. You can basically scale however you like and end up with nearly perfect clarity (talking about text obviously, images get blurred at any scale other than pixel doubling).
Obviously the perceived value depends on your usage. As I said I'm a programmer, so at home I actually do most of my coding on a vertical 16:9 monitor.
And you're right, its' not a huge difference, but in my case it's a trade between some advantage (I can fit a couple more lines of code on the screen at the same physical text size) vs no advantage for the other option at all (I don't work in side-by-side windows so I'll never see any advantage from the width). If I have a choice I'm going to advocate for the thing that gives me an advantage.
Last edited:
Yea, then you have ivy bridge, not haswell. It is not un-heard of for CPU ID to report the wrong hardware.
I can't access the first 9000 posts in this thread.
Can you guys start over?
To quote Schultz, "I know nothiiiiiiinnnnnngg..."
I can't access the first 9000 posts in this thread.
Can you guys start over?
I'm on it.
So what to we think about Intel's supposed ground-breaking iGPU replacing the dGPU? I assume Intel is going to disappoint again like they always have with their iGPUs.
I actually checked the first page and was less than shocked to find that this was indeed the summary of the conversation.
Don't know but as your faithful correspondent I humbly submit the next MBP killer for your amusement:
http://www.metroweekly.com/technocrat/2013/10/dells-xps-15-is-a-windows-running-macbook-pro-starting-at-1500.html
I guess if Dell can squeeze in a dGPU then so can Apple. There we have it folks.
Don't know but as your faithful correspondent I humbly submit the next MBP killer for your amusement:
http://www.metroweekly.com/technocrat/2013/10/dells-xps-15-is-a-windows-running-macbook-pro-starting-at-1500.html
I guess if Dell can squeeze in a dGPU then so can Apple. There we have it folks.
the question is, will it be as bad as last year throttle tastic xps 15, i hope not since the chassis looks the same for the m3800
Don't know but as your faithful correspondent I humbly submit the next MBP killer for your amusement:
http://www.metroweekly.com/technocrat/2013/10/dells-xps-15-is-a-windows-running-macbook-pro-starting-at-1500.html
I guess if Dell can squeeze in a dGPU then so can Apple. There we have it folks.
You're a little late. However, I like how you think.
Here is the official press release.
I have read but cannot confirm the following:
The 750 comes with 3 GB of DDR5 memory, you can opt for an 8 MB of cache Haswell i7 (4900?), and a greater than 512 SSD will be an option.
If Apple releases the 2013 MBPr with just a Haswell bump and no dGPU, they are going to look foolish.
-P
Don't know but as your faithful correspondent I humbly submit the next MBP killer for your amusement:
http://www.metroweekly.com/technocrat/2013/10/dells-xps-15-is-a-windows-running-macbook-pro-starting-at-1500.html
I guess if Dell can squeeze in a dGPU then so can Apple. There we have it folks.
oooh theres an IGZO display in there. Maybe apple might be rolling out IGZO... pretty please?
mmmm 17" inch IGZO 4k screen drool drool
people are too enamored with 4K. I think a more realistic approach would be to move the 13" to a retina display for 1440x900 (current 15" resolution) and move 15" to retina display for 1680x1050 (the original high end 15" resolution)
those IGZO displays could be ready
those IGZO displays could be ready
If there is indeed an event on the 15th and they don't get announced then I think there will be a lot of toasters in action for forum users here!
I see those prices everywhere on CL for that model. In 2 weeks, same model NIB will be found at sub $2000 (probably ~$1800), though it would be rarer, i can almost ensure these prices will pop up in two weeks.
Waiting may have been better, but still a decent price for a great machine.
The logic in mazzy89's post seems far more compelling and reasonable to me than the conjecture in Ifti's. Plus, it would just a stupid waste of R&D to have a custom 10.8.5 build for these machines anyway, given how close the laptop release date and the Mavericks release date would be.
WHAT??? You of all people caved in? Well congrats!!
I'm leaving the US this weekend. Waiting longer would have meant paying European prices.
Congratulations sir!
I am soo thinking about doing the same, but I can wait for one more week..
- Status