
“Don’t buy this computer.”  - shawndumas
http://www.marco.org/2012/11/06/the-retina-macbook-pro-13
======
nickporter
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).

~~~
otakucode
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.

~~~
Filligree
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.

~~~
kzrdude
Isn't it Apple's fault that they basically are designing OS X for fixed-size
UI. You can't scale text sizes independently of the UI elements for example.

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

------
brudgers
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.

~~~
calinet6
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.

~~~
brudgers
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.

~~~
calinet6
My point was not whether your critique was valid—certainly you're allowed to
come to those conclusions based on your own needs.

My point was that your argument was silly and pretentious, and I stand by
that, because you say things like "gazing at their screen in admiration" in an
insulting fashion, as if those who appreciate a good detailed and bright
display somehow have trivial and laughable requirements.

I don't claim that there is a single product that meets these needs, but I do
claim that the arguments brought on this product specifically by you and the
original author are baseless.

In other words, you're welcome to criticize the product all you want based on
your requirements, but don't pass it off as though your snarky analysis is
valuable in any objective way.

~~~
brudgers
I made no claims about the product. I commented upon Apple's branding.

I find the way in which Apple brands it's widgets far more interesting than
their specifications due to the way in which that branding affects online
discourse.

For example, your "argument" is centered on specifications of components
rather than productivity in a way which parallels Apple's branding - to the
point where your "argument" depends upon ignoring computing performance.

Objectively, there is nothing wrong with valuing one set of specifications
(display resolution) over another (computational benchmarks). But objectively,
there is nothing right about it either.

Except of course as it applies to an individual case. Pointing out that
individual cases are the basis for determining what is better, is expedited by
pointing to an absurd example. Perhaps, the one I chose was not absurd enough.

------
mwill
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.

~~~
cstross
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
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.)

------
niels_olson
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
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).

~~~
driverdan
> 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.

------
Cbasedlifeform
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.

~~~
aoe
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
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...

~~~
aoe
Quarter? really? could you link me?

~~~
goldenchrome
Atwood did a decent write up about them. It's a good place to start.
[http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/07/the-ips-lcd-
revolut...](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/07/the-ips-lcd-
revolution.html)

Edit: and you found it.

------
nsxwolf
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
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.

------
BryanB55
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.

~~~
DeepDuh
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.

------
pzaich
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.

------
adestefan
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.

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

------
MaysonL
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>

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

