(Yet another) Retina MBP review from a web designer/programmer

[ccaseiro]

Note that I'm using the pseudo 1920x1200 mode - the issue is slightly more pronounced at the default "Best (Retina)" setting

Hi, How does the rMBP looks with that resolution?
I think I will always use 1920x1200 or 1680x1050 (to little workspace with native 1440x900), but I'm a little afraid of performance lose or blurring effect - I mean: would It not be better to buy a regular MBP with native 1680x1050?

Thanks.

 

[F3NG3R]

Hi, How does the rMBP looks with that resolution?
I think I will always use 1920x1200 or 1680x1050 (to little workspace with native 1440x900), but I'm a little afraid of performance lose or blurring effect - I mean: would It not be better to buy a regular MBP with native 1680x1050?

Thanks.

I don't own a rmbp myself yet (should be here next week ), but I was just at a friends that has one and used his at 1920x1200 for a while. Now while it is possible to see that it is not perfect like the retina resolution if you really want to see it, I did not find it to be a problem at all. And as a bonus web graphics looked better because of the smaller size.

I can't comment too much at the 1680x1050 resolution as I only tried it for a few minutes, but it seemed very usable. I think the native 1680x1050 display of the regular MBP would be a tack sharper, but the ability to use any resolution between 1440x900 and 2880x1800 and still have a pleasantly crisp screen trump that for me.

 

[killmoms]

I can't comment too much at the 1680x1050 resolution as I only tried it for a few minutes, but it seemed very usable. I think the native 1680x1050 display of the regular MBP would be a tack sharper, but the ability to use any resolution between 1440x900 and 2880x1800 and still have a pleasantly crisp screen trump that for me.

Eh, it'd look a tack sharper on hard, pixel-exact edges, but the 1680 x 1050 mode of the MBPR still has more actual resolving power, and stuff like text and images will still look better and be more detailed. So I think it's still an improvement.

 

[zeraien]

Hi, How does the rMBP looks with that resolution?
I think I will always use 1920x1200 or 1680x1050 (to little workspace with native 1440x900), but I'm a little afraid of performance lose or blurring effect - I mean: would It not be better to buy a regular MBP with native 1680x1050?

Thanks.

Having just received my rMBP, I can tell you that the UI performance is on par with an Intel GMA950 when on the integrated card, so, somewhat comparable with a MacBook from 2008. However, I've noticed that some applications lower the performance abnormally, so it might be fixed with a software update.

I generally run mine at 1680 or 1920. And I'm very very sensitive to UI lag, many people don't seem to notice it, which I find weird.

When running it on the discreet card, it's acceptable, but nowhere near the buttery smoothness you get with the 2011 or 2012 15" MBP.

And then there is the issues of scrolling in web browsers. Even in Safari 6 or Chrome Canary, it's much laggier than on my 2011 MacMini with a discreet card.

For me the biggest draw of the rMBP has been the fact that you can run up to three external displays on it, which is awesome. And like the fact that it's lighter. But I miss my second HDD slot.