POST A COMMENT

36 Comments

Back to Article

  • ltcommanderdata - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    I'm guessing this means that the Haswell MacBook Pro refresh won't be coming until the fall then instead of launching alongside Haswell mid-year. Reply
  • A5 - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    That's normal. Apple doesn't really have to launch on Intel's schedule. Reply
  • Silenus - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    "As high DPI displays become more commonplace.........."

    Please....please let this happen. Sooner rather than later. I am dying for high DPI to come to other laptops, and especially to desktop monitors.
    Reply
  • nerd1 - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    1080p 13.3" IPS displays are already mainstream among high-end laptops, and even 1080p 11.6" IPS displays are quite common (samsung, asus, acer....)

    Enough is enough. I'm perfectly fine using 15" 1080p laptop - Yes many of my friends have so-called 'Retina' MBP, and I DID compare them side-by-side.
    Reply
  • nathanddrews - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    Yes, we should really stop chasing pixel density since you are fine with it. I'm glad we got that out of the way! The industry may now cease in this effort.

    /sarcasm

    In all seriousness, I really do hope that the industry continues to push pixel density. It will force display makers to innovate ways to shrink pixels, force software makers to build better scaling interfaces, and force GPU makers to get more aggressive with their designs. We'll all benefit from it in more ways than simply having prettier screens.
    Reply
  • nerd1 - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    Too high PPI is just a waste of resource and no more than a marketing gimmick. Your eyesight is determined by how much your eye can resolve. If you have 2.0/2.0 eyesight, you can resolve roughly up to 300ppi at 10inch viewing distance.

    And you don't view laptop screen that close. Recent study says the mean viewing distance acquired from 206 University employees is 68cm, or 26 inches. This means even if you have 2.0 eyesight, you cannot resolve more than 115PPI in standard viewing distance. Half that number if you have only 1.0/1.0 eyesight.

    That roughly equals 15.6" 1600*900 display, or 13.3" 1366*768 display.
    Reply
  • tdktank59 - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    While I understand that, the higher the density to higher the resolution can be meaning more screen real estate. As a developer programming on a 720p screen sucks since I have gotten used to 1080p and higher.

    Ive gotten used to seeing SOOO much screen that going smaller is not an option. I feel 2560x1600 (or 1440) is about right for anything 17"-~30" and then below 17 should at least be 1080.
    Reply
  • Death666Angel - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    Higher DPI will also help things look decent at non-native resolution. Reply
  • nerd1 - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link

    You shouldn't use non-native resolution at all. The UI should scale to correct size instead. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link

    Huh? I mean, I'm all for 1080p gaming and 1440p gaming on extreme settings with every game on every device I own @ 60fps. But I don't see it happening. So I want the ability to play an older game with full resolution (1080p on a tablet) and newer, more performance hungry games with 720p.

    That's got nothing to go with UI scaling, but with hardware power not being high enough in all instances. :)
    Reply
  • phillyry - Sunday, February 24, 2013 - link

    I've refuted it as being a marketing gimmick later on in the forums but your argument that it's a waste of resources could be valid.

    It definitely takes more hardware to drive higher res displays, which in turn uses more resources (in terms of electricity).

    The constant increasing of technology and whether it is done at the expense of the environment as an entire other debate.
    Reply
  • EnzoFX - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    No, enough is never enough. That's the whole basis of technology. Furthermore, there are other aspects to Apple's retina displays that make it better than most of what's out there, like how the screen is closer to the glass, or how it's wide-gamut or calibrated. If you can't tell the difference between them and other offerings, good for you. It means you don't need it, it however does not mean other people don't, or worse yet, that it shouldn't be a limit to be pushed. Reply
  • nerd1 - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link

    High resolution display is good, but you will have diminishing returns after some point. Your eye is the limiting factor here, and you must either have a extraordinary eyesight (like some native tribes) or put your eye VERY close to the screen. Yes, you can see the resolution difference if you really try to (I did) but that's more like the top speed of cars - It won't matter weather your car has 180mph or 250mph top speed, if you cannot speed more than 60mph anyway.

    Also everyone EXCEPT APPLE has been making laptops with quality display. Sony have been using wide gamut (~100% adobe color space), high resolution (13.3" FHD) LCD for their Z series laptop for years.
    Dell has been using RGB LED lcd (>100% gamut) on their laptops for years too. Samsung put PLS lcd on their series 9 laptops for quite a while. Lenovo has made laptops with IPS display for a very long time.
    Reply
  • darwinosx - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    Then you seriously need to get your eyes checked. Reply
  • piiman - Saturday, February 16, 2013 - link

    And you need to look into why you buy marketing hype so easily. Reply
  • phillyry - Sunday, February 24, 2013 - link

    It's not just marketing.

    When I go back to using my iPhone 3GS after having gotten used to an iPhone 5 and iPad 3 it pains me to look at the thing - I notice pixels every single time.

    I even notice them on my MacBook Air now, at 1440 x 900. Not everybody keeps their laptop and 26 inches away from. By the way that is the median, not the range.
    Reply
  • KPOM - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    It also looks like the dual-core 3.0GHz i7 upgrade option for the 13" is a new chip:

    http://ark.intel.com/products/71255/Intel-Core-i7-...
    Reply
  • 00DC2TW - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    Is the 2.6 new? Reply
  • KPOM - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    I don't think so. Intel has offered a 2.6GHz i5 from the beginning. They also offer a 2.8GHz version that's in the Windows PC I use at the office. I'm guessing Apple just decided to do a spec bump to make it more attractive. I'm a bit surprised they didn't just do that with the $1499 model, too. Reply
  • 00DC2TW - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    I think it is new... I think its this one https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rl... Reply
  • 00DC2TW - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    edit wrong link: this one http://ark.intel.com/products/72164/Intel-Core-i5-... Reply
  • Null Pointer - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    I assume the upgraded 15" now comes with a i7-3740QM, not a i7-3820QM. The 2.8 GHz upgrade is probably for a i7-3840QM. Reply
  • 00DC2TW - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    looks like I will be going to the apple store to return my 13" retina and get $300 back and a free upgrade! Reply
  • KitsuneKnight - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    If it's within 14 days of purchase, you can just call and have the difference refunded. No return-rebuy cycle needed. Reply
  • 00DC2TW - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    why would I just get a refund? the processor spec was bumped also. Reply
  • KitsuneKnight - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    Ah, assumed it was the base model. The 'free upgrade' bit makes a lot more sense in this context :P Reply
  • solarisking - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    Now that I have a rMBP I'm wondering when aftermarket SSD upgrades are going to be available. 256GB is a little confining. I need that 512GB upgrade! Problem is it's a proprietary part, as I'm sure all of you reading this know. Reply
  • 00DC2TW - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    There are already upgrades and have been upgrades for a while

    checkout macsale.com
    Reply
  • 00DC2TW - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    macsales.com Reply
  • solarisking - Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - link

    $580 for a 480GB ssd. Ouch. Never mind... Reply
  • 00DC2TW - Friday, February 15, 2013 - link

    Yeah, prices are still pretty high, because they have no competition at the moment Reply
  • zorxd - Friday, February 15, 2013 - link

    High resolution displays aren't that expensive to make.
    They are just not that common because most people are fine with their 1366x768 15" laptop.
    Reply
  • trajan2448 - Saturday, February 16, 2013 - link

    I hope they release another 17" with all the bells and whistles for power users. Many of my friends in the music business use these. Here's hoping. Reply
  • Tuffrabbit - Monday, February 18, 2013 - link

    Thanks trajan, I second that... My 17" MBP is still working great, but would like another, 1,920 x 1,200 works great for me (16:10 Aspect Ratio)... But would certainly try a Retina at 17"... Reply
  • jed22281 - Friday, February 22, 2013 - link

    Sigh, wish I'd waited a bit longer, I ordered mine approx. Dec 16th, didnt get till 28/29th IIRC... :( Reply
  • Jim Maney - Friday, March 08, 2013 - link

    My eyesight is terrible compared to what many of you are talking about. I currently use Windows on a 1366 * 768 - 18.5 inch desktop. I could use fonts that are even larger. Had to stop using a Mac, as the fonts were too small. For me, please, make all the pixels you want, so when I cut it down to half, it won't be fuzzy. We all win! Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now