or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPhone 5 - Page 13

post #181 of 4017
really tho. i highly doubt there is that much of a different to warrant the upcharge and decrease in battery life. even the resolution of HD+ is just 1600x900

there was an article on anandtech comparing desktop size, viewing quality, and pixel size. really anything above 1920x1080 (or 1200) seems pretty useless
post #182 of 4017
I'm going to wait for the official reviews to start rolling in, but so far the hands on impressions I have seen say otherwise. Sure it could be just the initial "wow" factor of having a new product. I'll give you that. Yet so far everyone is saying it's extremely impressive to behold.
post #183 of 4017
Early thoughts on the new Macbook from AnandTech: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis
post #184 of 4017
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMRouse View Post

I'm going to wait for the official reviews to start rolling in, but so far the hands on impressions I have seen say otherwise. Sure it could be just the initial "wow" factor of having a new product. I'll give you that. Yet so far everyone is saying it's extremely impressive to behold.

are these reviewers just the normal people who are in the tank for Obama Apple?
post #185 of 4017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas View Post

are these reviewers just the normal people who are in the tank for Obama Apple?

Yes. Clearly bought and sold their souls to Apple long ago.
post #186 of 4017
I don't know how anyone can doubt the efficacy of a retina display. Computer design has been so wrongheaded, so incremental, and so conservative with most computer manufacturers just pumping up internal specs that for the most part don't matter to most people, while the important parts --- the parts that humans actually make contact with a computer --- have been almost completely neglected.

The only tangible improvement to displays in the last 20 years has been to make monitors lighter and more energy efficient. The resolutions and color accuracy that we use today have been available since at least the late 80s. Back then, you had to buy a really expensive workstation to get these things, but they have been around. Finally we're getting a display that makes that part of the human interface less noticeable and more transparent, and people are complaining that we don't need it? That probably means that Apple's onto something right.

I also have to laugh at how almost every one of Intel ultrabooks that just came out copied the MBA's wedge shape. It's like everyone else is waiting for Apple to introduce something so they can copy it. Of course, the whole unibody, aluminum, chiclet keyboard packaging is de rigeur now with many new laptops. That is a pretty damning indictment of the computer engineering community (and I count myself as a member of that group).

Despite complaining about copying, I'm now eagerly waiting for cheap Chinese knockoffs of the asymmetrical fan blade config in the Retina Macbook so we can all have quieter computers.
post #187 of 4017
well your vaunted vast improvement since the 80s is really only a laptop screen with a much higher pixel density than any other laptop screen.

if it came at no disadvantage then it's definitely something to jump on but it's a lot more expensive and would be a big drain on battery.

and i dont want to bring up apple copying sony design but i just did.


that said initial reviews sound fantastic and it sounds like a great laptop. i just think people are making it a bigger deal than it really is
post #188 of 4017
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

well your vaunted vast improvement since the 80s is really only a laptop screen with a much higher pixel density than any other laptop screen.
if it came at no disadvantage then it's definitely something to jump on but it's a lot more expensive and would be a big drain on battery.
and i dont want to bring up apple copying sony design but i just did.
that said initial reviews sound fantastic and it sounds like a great laptop. i just think people are making it a bigger deal than it really is

Yes, it's the pixel density that is the big improvement. And doesn't it strike you as incredible that as simple as that sounds, no one else has tried to push it? Every other display we have today is basically the same thing that we've had over the last decade.

It's also not really much more expensive. Spec up a regular MBP and a Retina MBP with similar specs, and the Retina is about $300 cheaper. A lot of that comes from the higher level of integration of the Retina MBP (mainly in the SSD), but I don't think the Retina display is as expensive as people make it out to be.

Battery usage is the cost of this technology. But that's like saying you don't want faster CPUs because they will use more energy. It's a good thing Apple is also pushing battery technology (and flash if you want to throw one more thing in).

As for the Sony thing, we'll just agree to disagree on that one for many reasons. Two of which are that the physical design is actually not the same, and that software is as important a part of the design as the physical packaging. And as long as you use Windows or any other off-the-shelf OS, you will never be able to do as good a job as a vertically-integrated manufacturer who knows what they're doing.
post #189 of 4017
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

well your vaunted vast improvement since the 80s is really only a laptop screen with a much higher pixel density than any other laptop screen.
if it came at no disadvantage then it's definitely something to jump on but it's a lot more expensive and would be a big drain on battery.
and i dont want to bring up apple copying sony design but i just did.
that said initial reviews sound fantastic and it sounds like a great laptop. i just think people are making it a bigger deal than it really is

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Y View Post

Yes, it's the pixel density that is the big improvement. And doesn't it strike you as incredible that as simple as that sounds, no one else has tried to push it? Every other display we have today is basically the same thing that we've had over the last decade.
It's also not really much more expensive. Spec up a regular MBP and a Retina MBP with similar specs, and the Retina is about $300 cheaper. A lot of that comes from the higher level of integration of the Retina MBP (mainly in the SSD), but I don't think the Retina display is as expensive as people make it out to be.
Battery usage is the cost of this technology. But that's like saying you don't want faster CPUs because they will use more energy. It's a good thing Apple is also pushing battery technology (and flash if you want to throw one more thing in).
As for the Sony thing, we'll just agree to disagree on that one for many reasons. Two of which are that the physical design is actually not the same, and that software is as important a part of the design as the physical packaging. And as long as you use Windows or any other off-the-shelf OS, you will never be able to do as good a job as a vertically-integrated manufacturer who knows what they're doing.

Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against A Y on a technology debate when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
post #190 of 4017
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Y View Post

Yes, it's the pixel density that is the big improvement. And doesn't it strike you as incredible that as simple as that sounds, no one else has tried to push it? Every other display we have today is basically the same thing that we've had over the last decade.
It's also not really much more expensive. Spec up a regular MBP and a Retina MBP with similar specs, and the Retina is about $300 cheaper. A lot of that comes from the higher level of integration of the Retina MBP (mainly in the SSD), but I don't think the Retina display is as expensive as people make it out to be.
Battery usage is the cost of this technology. But that's like saying you don't want faster CPUs because they will use more energy. It's a good thing Apple is also pushing battery technology (and flash if you want to throw one more thing in).
As for the Sony thing, we'll just agree to disagree on that one for many reasons. Two of which are that the physical design is actually not the same, and that software is as important a part of the design as the physical packaging. And as long as you use Windows or any other off-the-shelf OS, you will never be able to do as good a job as a vertically-integrated manufacturer who knows what they're doing.

well as for the software issue, you're first point was really about the physical design (everybody copying apple's wedge design). it seems you're switching arguments. and the new ultrabook (and whatever else) designs are not actually the same either. i'd like to see evidence to the contrary tho. just my impression as a casual observer

woah. i just configured it and the retina is $200 cheaper (8gb ram, 256 gb ssd). that's pretty awesome.

well i'm not saying you wouldn't want a faster cpu, i'm just saying a faster cpu comes with disadvantages. not everybody needs a faster cpu.



nobody's been pushing it yes, but simply because nobody's been pushing it doesn't mean it's better. maybe there's a reason other than trying to screw the customer, like the disadvantages we talked about.
post #191 of 4017
Yes, you're right --- the original discussion was about the physical design. The reason I brought up software is that the physical packaging can often be limited by how much you can customize your software. For example, if you want to use a particular chip because it lets you use physically smaller ports (like Thunderbolt), but for some reason can't (there's no support for it in Windows, like Thunderbolt when it first came out), then you may have to change your physical packaging to do something else.

The biggest physical difference I see between the Sonys and unibody Macbooks is the unibody construction.

I configured the 512 GB SSD for the Retina, but yeah the difference is still pretty big with the smaller SSD. You can get that difference down if you order it with a spinning disk and install your own SSD.

FYI, if you're getting a Retina MBP, get the memory you need when you order, because its memory is non-upgradeable --- they're soldered onto the motherboard.
post #192 of 4017
the unibody i admit is pretty new. nobody did that and i dont know of anybody that's doing it. but in my uninformed opinion the general shape and lines seem to be pretty similar

that i never understood (not being able to upgrade memory and hardware in a lot of products) but thinking about it, apple products tend to be associated with luxury (although nerds will scream overpricing). maybe there's a kind of veblen good effect going on here.
post #193 of 4017
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

the unibody i admit is pretty new. nobody did that and i dont know of anybody that's doing it. but in my uninformed opinion the general shape and lines seem to be pretty similar
that i never understood (not being able to upgrade memory and hardware in a lot of products) but thinking about it, apple products tend to be associated with luxury (although nerds will scream overpricing). maybe there's a kind of veblen good effect going on here.

...and brand whoring, especially given the luxury pricing model that Apple uses here, just like Louis Vuitton, Rolex, Gucci, Mont Blanc, Cartier, Vertu, etc....that's why there's so many Apple knock-offs around...
321
308
263
Two fake Apple Stores and a fake iPod,.There's actually four fake Apple Stores near where I live.

Put it this way, I'm not in a hurry to buy any Apple products any time soon, real or counterfeit.
Edited by MikeDT - 6/13/12 at 8:01am
post #194 of 4017
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

the unibody i admit is pretty new. nobody did that and i dont know of anybody that's doing it. but in my uninformed opinion the general shape and lines seem to be pretty similar

that i never understood (not being able to upgrade memory and hardware in a lot of products) but thinking about it, apple products tend to be associated with luxury (although nerds will scream overpricing). maybe there's a kind of veblen good effect going on here.

Yes, but this is really not true anymore. Many of Apple's products are reasonably priced and well within reach of the Joe public. Just because they sell a $2200+ laptop does not mean they don't also sell a $50 iPod and a free on contract iPhone.
post #195 of 4017
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home