“Don’t buy this computer.”

http://www.marco.org/2012/11/06/the-retina-macbook-pro-13

by shawndumas • 14 years ago

54 67 14 years ago

I was all set to upgrade my 2011 MBA to the rMBP 13" but on reflection I'll stick with the MBA for now... I do most serious coding on an external monitor anyway. I gather the 2012 MBA is significantly faster than my 2011 version.

aoe4• 14 years ago

Offtopic: Which external monitor do you use?

I'm thinking of getting the 27" Apple one, but waiting to see if they would release a retina-resolution anytime soon.

dabeeeenster• 14 years ago

Not going to happen any time soon - the GPU power needed (esp from a laptop) is a few years off I think.

Dont get the Apple display - just get a Korean knock off with the same panel for a quarter of the price...

Cbasedlifeform2• 14 years ago

I spoiled myself with the Apple thunderbolt display I confess, and love it. But I did not research all the alternatives and no doubt I paid the Apple premium tax.

No doubt there are better deals but if say the premium is $350 over a 3 year lifetime (at least) it's a few starbucks coffees or meals out per year for something I use hours per day :)

kylec3• 14 years ago

If you're not going to use the screen then it's probably not worth the premium over the MacBook Air for you. However, the rMBP does have other advantages over the Air, namely faster processors and two Thunderbolt ports instead of the Air's one.

kylec3• 14 years ago

Here's the discussion from yesterday about the article Marco linked to: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4750276

nickporter2• 14 years ago

The true resolution of the 13" rMBP is 2560×1600, 15" rMBP is 2880×1800.

That means even if you are getting a scaled down resolution of 1440×900, the real resolution of the display is still obscenely high. Everything is MUCH sharper than on the regular displays. The fonts are gorgeous.

I own a 15" rMBP. I can change the scaled resolution to 1680×1050 or 1920×1200, without loss of details. Seriously, there is no fuzziness or anything sort of BS like that. I think Marco needs glasses.

One problem with this laptop is with non-retina ready apps and some websites. Since the display is at such a high resolution, smaller images will appear a bit blurry (because of the upscaling algorithms), but its really not that bad. Non-retina ready apps will look pixelated, and it sucks. But most popular apps are retina-ready, so again, it's not a big problem.

Another problem is because you are rendering stuff at such a high resolution, there may be performance issues in some apps. Most of them were optimized for this (e.g. sublime text 2).

hboon• 14 years ago

A related tip: for non-retina ready apps, going to properties (Cmd+i) in Finder and checking Open in Low Resolution can help a lot.

calinet65• 14 years ago

And the technology is fairly young, and things will continue to improve.

You speak the truth. The original article is hogwash and should be ignored with prejudice.

otakucode• 14 years ago

I am a bit confused. If the resolution is 2560x1600, why don't you run it at 2560x1600? The idea of not running a panel at its native resolution bothers me greatly. Is it the case that you're not able to run the system at its actual native resolution? That seems to be what these articles are saying, but they all seem to be dancing around it or assuming I've read something I haven't.

kzrdude2• 14 years ago

It's all in apple's implementation of retina in OS X. The display is running at its native 1600p but runs applications at a "logical" 800p resolution. It's just as if points and pixels suddenly had different meanings.

Filligree• 14 years ago

It's basically about whether applications are DPI-aware or not.

Applications that are get the full 2560x1600 resolution. Applications that don't, don't; instead, they get 1280x800 by default, for an 1:2 upscaling. If you want, you can change that number, of course at a performance cost.

People are complaining because even most of the apps that are DPI-aware (Chrome, etc.) don't offer a way to change the physical size of their chrome, but that isn't really Apple's fault.

nickporter2• 14 years ago

Since the display is small (i.e. the pixel density is high), if I were to run OSX without scaling, everything would extremely tiny. That's the reason you need scaling. But you're still running at native resolution, so there's no blurring.

Think of this like vector graphics. You can enlarge them without getting pixelation. This is, I think, what scaling does.

driverdan2• 14 years ago

I agree. I run my 15" at 1920x1200. Rasterized graphics can be a little fuzzy if you look closely but it's hardly noticeable. If you spend most of your time doing graphics work then yes, you'll probably have issues. Photoshop CS5.1 is really bad. Other than that I like it much better than the previous 1680x1050 screen.

adestefan2• 14 years ago

I'm more worried about the HD 4000 driving a Retina display than I am about the resolution. I moved from a 15" MBP to a 13" MBP and it's never really bothered me.

niels_olson2• 14 years ago

I leave my 15" rMBP in 1920 mode. Having two full A4 or 8.5x11 sheets of paper next to each other is too valuable when studying or doing research. The texts are invariably in PDF format. If I'm working on my notes, I'm on the web, if I'm working on a paper, I'm in LibreOffice. If I'm working on code, it's in emacs. Generally, inputs are on the right, and the working text is on the left. I frankly have no other use for such an incredible machine. I just wanted the screen.

kbutler• 14 years ago

How does the retina screen scaled 1920x1080 compare to a laptop with native 1920x1080?

I'd expect the native 1920x1080 to actually yield a sharper image than retina scaled down.

I realize Apple doesn't provide a native 1920x1080, but it's not hard to find in non-Apple 15" laptops, at an easy $1,000 cost savings for higher-performance components (but less thin-and-light).

driverdan2• 14 years ago

> How does the retina screen scaled 1920x1080 compare to a laptop with native 1920x1080?

IMO it looks much better. Only rasterized objects are scaled. Fonts and native components still render at full DPI.

> I realize Apple doesn't provide a native 1920x1080, but it's not hard to find in non-Apple 15" laptops, at an easy $1,000 cost savings for higher-performance components (but less thin-and-light).

Good luck finding one with equal or better build quality that will run a POSIX OS flawlessly (no driver issues, no hacking configs or recompiling, etc) and costs $1000 less. I looked at a lot of other hardware before buying my 15" rMBP and couldn't find anything that measured up.

niels_olson2• 14 years ago

I have owned a Dell Latitude D820 with a WUXGA (1920 X 1200) screen since 2006(-ish?). It is good, but not nearly as good at the Retina, and the screen is more square, making two sheets side-by-side feel awkward.

brudgers6• 14 years ago

That scaling pixelated displays produces less satisfactory results than native resolutions is not news.

What is noteworthy is that the direction Apple is headed is toward competing on specifications such as pixel count rather than functional design.

Retina branding is in no small part about competing on pixel count. It is not significantly about competing on productivity.

Personally, if I am admiring the rendering of fonts on my screen, either the content is less than compelling or I am graphically designing with inadequate attention to a real world audience.

tammer• 14 years ago

Good analysis. 'Pro', to me, means more screen real-estate, not less. Consumer, as in the consumption of content, means a sharper, prettier screen with a lower effective resolution.

It's interesting that in this iteration, it seems that these qualities have switched product lines. The Air now seems to be the choice for professional work, for the reasons you describe in your last sentence. I do hope that as they roll out the display across their products they continue to ship a model with a larger effective@native resolution.

jfb3• 14 years ago

I am a "pro". I care far more about the quality of the display than the putative resolution.

calinet65• 14 years ago

Your argument is silly and pretentious.

The quality of the Retina screen is simply better—no fanboyism, no dogma, it's just a higher quality picture, period. It's nice to read sharper fonts, it's nice that the interface scales natively, and it just looks great. It's not about "admiring" anything, it's not about being out-of-touch with the "real world audience"—it's just a higher quality piece of technology.

Furthermore, this statement from the original article is simply false:

"the 13” Retina, like the 15” Retina, can scale to a simulated 1680 × 1050, but it doesn’t look nearly as good"

As the author notes, the only problem with the higher-resolution scaling is performance, and even then the Intel 4000 integrated graphics actually still handles it with relative ease.

Apple is slightly ahead of their time here. The technology really is stunning, and in practical use it still works well. Performance is a slight issue when scaling to higher desktop areas, but the tradeoff for more real estate is more than worth it.

The truth is that the screen gives you more options for how to size and use your display, not fewer as this article seems to imply. The limitations are slight, and in this and future models, software and hardware will surely continue to improve.

In short: the death of the high-dpi display has been greatly exaggerated. Don't pay attention to this FUD, just try one yourself for an extended period of time.

brudgers6• 14 years ago

The article's critique found shortcomings due to the way in which Apple's decisions regarding the display negatively impacted the utility of the computer.

Different people have different needs. Some will engage in tasks which entail functional system performance; others tasks which entail gazing at their screen in admiration.

There may not be a single product which meets both their needs.

berntb2• 14 years ago

>>Retina branding [...] is not significantly about competing on productivity.

I am far from a UI/UX expert, but I (and many others I've read about [e.g. see cstross in another comment]) have the experience that "retina displays" make a very big difference for text [readability].

If you really have good references to support your claim my experience is marketing bullshit, I'm very interested.

(Personally, I think HN has degenerated to FUD wars over tablets the last week(s). At least increase quality.)

brudgers6• 14 years ago

I'm speaking about the branding of Retina. It is the same "megapixels" advertising used with commodity cameras with an upscale wrapper. More pixels isn't technological innovation. It isn't great design. It's a bigger box of soap for the same low price.

That's not to say that Retina isn't innovative. Delivering such a display at the price point and quantities that Apple is, is a feat of logistics. Apple has a real competitive advantage.

Retina displays may provide a productivity boost to some people. But that's not the basis of it's branding. The branding is a mass market appeal to hedonistic pursuits and aspirational consumption. There's nothing wrong with that.

jfb3• 14 years ago

Higher quality text display is absolutely a functional design issue.

viscanti• 14 years ago

I think part of the "retina" branding was that pixel count doesn't matter beyond that point. It's indistinguishable to the eye, so beyond that point more are not better. It's debatable if that's actually the case, but it's an implicit part of the marketing. The idea is that you'll never need to look for a better screen.

pzaich• 14 years ago

I've had my "retina" 15" since August and have been running it at 1920x1200 pretty much from Day 1. Coming from Macbook Pro's at 1440x900 and 1680x1050, it is definitely an adjustment. But honestly, I would never go back now. I can actually prefer coding on a single screen now! If something is too small, I can usually get away just bumping up the scaling in browser. I haven't experienced/noticed any kind of fuzziness or performance issues with scrolling. By far the best computer I've owned.

mwill4• 14 years ago

Anyone with the 15" rMBP, if you haven't tried it yet, grab an app called SetResX (There are others, but SetResX is free and the only one I've actually tried). It'll let you force the screen to 2880x1800.

This might just be me, but I love to code like this, splitting different windows to different corners of the screen. I used to use a 30" 2560x1600, and the rMBP @ 2880x1800 lets me keep the same workflow I love on a laptop. Admittedly it takes a little getting used to and such a high res on a small screen isn't for everyone, but if you've got one, give it a try at least once.

calinet65• 14 years ago

I simultaneously envy your eyesight and pity what you are doing to it.

SquareWheel2• 14 years ago

Try replacing your asterisks with x's, or escape them. It's triggering Markdown.

mwill4• 14 years ago

Whoops, done, thanks.

sneak• 14 years ago

Could you please put contact info in your HN profile? I'd like to email or IM you.

nsxwolf2• 14 years ago

I second this. This has to be seen to be believed (if your eyes can manage it).

More real estate than the old 30" cinema display, in a 15" diagonal screen. It's a miracle.

cstross• 14 years ago

I currently spend about 60 hours a week working with my 15" rMBP. I tried the 2880 x 1800 and 1650 x 1050 resolutions; but in the end I gave up and went for the native emulated 1440 x 900. Because what that gives you is in effect an incredibly crisp 1440 x 900 pixel display with sub-pixel anti-aliasing (as far as the GUI furniture is concerned), and large enough to work on comfortably without squinting.

Disclaimer: I have 48 year old eyeballs with dormant peripheral retinopathy in one eye, a damaged (by surgery) fovea in the other, and a (different in each) mixture of presybyopia, myopia, astigmatism, and a squint due to muscle weakness (in the left). My eyeballs need all the tender loving care I can lavish on them, hence the rMBP. Your priorities may (and probably do) differ, but if you've got eyesight issues, this screen is simply a joy to use.

scrumper• 14 years ago

This may be a bit mean but I'm picturing you looking a bit like Marty Feldman. Sorry. I have sympathy though: I have keratoconus in both eyes as well as severe astimgatism. I find the 1680x1050 antiglare screen on my 15" MBP just about perfect. I have a 27" Thunderbolt panel too, which looks great but for some reason I find it hard to focus on for long periods. My eyes kind of 'slip off.'

Tip: enable "Use scroll wheel with modifier keys to zoom" in Universal Access->Zoom->Options. Ctrl+scroll (ie two finger vertical swipe, or mouse wheel) will now zoom the window around your pointer. It's a massive help for tired eyes; you can just enlarge the stuff you're working on. I don't have to go in far for it to make a huge difference. (I found it somewhat humbling to have a legitimate need for an accessibility feature.)

mwill4• 14 years ago

I agree and want to add this: If you take a look at your requirements and how you use the screen, and compare them to my own, you can see how incredibly versatile a screen like this is. I really hope both the hardware and software that makes it happen becomes widespread.

Theres a level of flexibility and choice I didn't realise I wanted until I got used to quickly switching between scaled the various default osx scaling and full native res at the drop of a hat, to suit whatever I'm doing.

jfb3• 14 years ago

I have to boot into Windows from time to time on my rMBP, and it's just flat out unusable for my 40-yr-old eyes. I switched to native in OS X just to see and it too is unusable for me. I envy you your eyesight.

mwill4• 14 years ago

Tip for Windows though you probably already know, crank the DPI up. It helps a little bit, although it makes Windows behave funny when you want to run something fullscreen.

I really hope comprehensive support for high res displays lands in Windows at some point.

BryanB55• 14 years ago

I've had the old 15" macboo pro, a 13" air and now the 15" retina. Never noticed less space on the screen. Only thing I did notice was everything is more crisp. Doesn't bother me at all.

DeepDuh2• 14 years ago

I think part of the reason is that you can now read much smaller text, so you don't have to fiddle around the zoom level all the time. The chrome and top menu could be a bit smaller but it's not really a bit issue for me when browsing. For coding one can still switch to higher resolutions and it's a joy too.

nsxwolf2• 14 years ago

I'd love to someday see the return of the 17" MBP, in Retina form. There would be no compromise in screen real estate in the hiDPI mode, and the full-native hack would provide mind-boggling space.

The 17" sold poorly, but was it because of the size or the weight? If it was the weight, maybe there's a chance.

wonderyak• 14 years ago

I should think it was the price first, then the size and the weight. That was an extremely expensive laptop.

If they brought it back, I'd be afraid to ask what kind of GPU it takes to drive a 17" Retina screen on a laptop.

magikarp• 14 years ago

What is this nonsense? You can easily set the display resolution to 1440x900 (or higher) in your 13" Retina Macbook's display settings.

mcguire• 14 years ago

I don't really follow Apple products. What is this "effective" screen size bit?

MaysonL• 14 years ago

And here's a screenshot of what 1920x1200 looks like on a non-Retina 15" MBP (Running 10.8.2 under Parallels): http://i.imgur.com/RKaiZ.jpg?1

“Don’t buy this computer.”

Related Stories