Originally Posted by indesertum
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.